I would really take anything he says with a grain of salt…the dude is literally the person who invented shock therapy for post Soviet States. He’s not a reliable narrator and his only real goal is to spread Keynesian economics and convince authoritarian governments to privatize state assets.
Not to paint Sachs as a perfect saint, but Naomi Klein really oversold his villainry in her book. Sachs was not the architect of shock therapy, which is a neoliberal economics project in direct opposition to Sach’s Keynesian economics school. As capitalist positions go, Keynesianism is comparatively good. He talked about it a little last year on Breaking Points. I tend to think that he was dropped into the former Warsaw Pact states when he was young, idealistic, and largely ignorant of US neocolonialism.
I find it interesting that people here are falling over themselves to defend a capitalist economist. Is supporting Russian nationalism so important that we now defend a participant in the destruction of the Soviet system?
You’re arguing with straw men. I’m not defending capitalism nor the destruction of the Soviet Union. Nobody is confusing Sachs for a comrade. I said, “as capitalist positions go.” There’s a difference between Keynesianism and neocolonial asset stripping of the commons.
No he typically tries to stabilize economies, thats his expertise. He tried to argue that the US should have helped russia economically. His advice was mostly ignored by soviets and later by Yelstin during the horrendous privatization.
But he is diplomatic, so yes he filters what he says.
At least he has the decency to openly admit that what was done in the 90s was absolutely wrong, and I think he’s been an important voice denouncing US imperialism precisely because he’s seen how it works from the inside.
I don’t think we have to trust him, but when he says things that are obviously correct then it’s worth sharing that. Also, the people that need convincing are more likely to listen to somebody like Sachs.
In 1989, Sachs advised Poland’s anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland’s reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland’s debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised on the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[33] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[34] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[35][independent source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit.[36] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[21] Based on Poland’s success, his advice was sought first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and by his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, on the transition of the USSR/Russia to a market economy.[37]
Sachs’ methods for stabilizing economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[31] He faced criticism for his role after the Russian economy faced significant struggles after adopting the market-based shock therapy in the early 1990s.[38][39][40]
Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.
But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.
Neither the US, Ukraine, nor Russia is even approaching socialism, so I don’t see how campism is relevant. What is relevant is imperialism vs. anti-imperialism.
Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?
In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
Neither the US, Ukraine, nor Russia is even approaching socialism, so I don’t see how campism is relevant. What is relevant is imperialism vs. anti-imperialism.
I would say a socialist defending a violent imperialist nation invading a nation simply because they are at times geopolitically opposed to another violent imperialist nation is a form of campism.
in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
And what evidence supports the idea that it will be easier to liberate one colonizer state from a second colonizer state located right next door? Seems you are perpetuating a lot of violence based on nothing.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US.
In what way have they liberated themselves from shock therapy? Their government is the result of shock therapy, where the vast majority of wealth is tied to an oligarchic control that’s even more hierarchal than just about any other nation in the world.
It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
Therea no actual evidence to support thwre was a “genocide” happening in donbos. They were just doing the same form of imperialism they didn’t in 08’ in Georgia, where they participated in ethnic cleansing.
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous if you actually look at the history Russias relations with their neighbors in the late 00’s. It’s just imperialism…
Therea no actual evidence to support thwre was a “genocide” happening in donbos.
Just the small problem of thousands of murdered eastern Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian state’s efforts to systematically suppress their political representation and their language.
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Just the small problem of thousands of murdered eastern Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian state’s efforts to systematically suppress their political representation and their language.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Because discussions between an administration and a head of state is now considered binding geopolitical contracts?
" the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It…used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.”
Not a very intellectually honest interpretation from this “journalistic website”
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Demanding the impossible…that NATO retract to levels back in the 90s and to prevent an invasion that had already happened is a bit far from
“NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine”
The NATO chief was just repeating putina claims, not making claims.
This is ridiculous and just a historical and dishonest.
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous if you actually look at the history Russias relations with their neighbors in the late 00’s. It’s just imperialism…
And a lot of that expansion is done while Russia wanted to join NATO , or while they were on a permanent joint council with NATO. Up until recently NATO was just an organization used to give hand outs to the American military industrial complex.
It wasn’t until their invasion of Georgia and the resulting capital pull out from Moscow that Russia even complained about NATO.
Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.
The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.
Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?
Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.
Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.
So he’s just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?
is a matter of observation.
Ahh, so because you said so. Got it
Quite a stretch of the word quote
Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.
Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist we can reject only dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis
And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?
No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.
Quote of whom?
First where does security concern equal “standing up to something”. Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?
edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.
yes even if the state does manage to buy back assets and hold them for a long time and actually run them properly as long as there are capitalists competing with the state there will always be an incentive to flog the states assets for cheap price and entshittify them it’s why social democracy is a bandaid
I would really take anything he says with a grain of salt…the dude is literally the person who invented shock therapy for post Soviet States. He’s not a reliable narrator and his only real goal is to spread Keynesian economics and convince authoritarian governments to privatize state assets.
Not to paint Sachs as a perfect saint, but Naomi Klein really oversold his villainry in her book. Sachs was not the architect of shock therapy, which is a neoliberal economics project in direct opposition to Sach’s Keynesian economics school. As capitalist positions go, Keynesianism is comparatively good. He talked about it a little last year on Breaking Points. I tend to think that he was dropped into the former Warsaw Pact states when he was young, idealistic, and largely ignorant of US neocolonialism.
I find it interesting that people here are falling over themselves to defend a capitalist economist. Is supporting Russian nationalism so important that we now defend a participant in the destruction of the Soviet system?
You’re arguing with straw men. I’m not defending capitalism nor the destruction of the Soviet Union. Nobody is confusing Sachs for a comrade. I said, “as capitalist positions go.” There’s a difference between Keynesianism and neocolonial asset stripping of the commons.
I claimed you were defending a capitalist economist, which you are.
My original statement was to take anything he said with a grain of salt and that he pioneered what would one day be labeled as shock therapy.
Which people then claimed he didn’t do, based on his own claims.
No he typically tries to stabilize economies, thats his expertise. He tried to argue that the US should have helped russia economically. His advice was mostly ignored by soviets and later by Yelstin during the horrendous privatization.
But he is diplomatic, so yes he filters what he says.
“all he wanted was to spread a bit of democracy to the savages” 😩
At least he has the decency to openly admit that what was done in the 90s was absolutely wrong, and I think he’s been an important voice denouncing US imperialism precisely because he’s seen how it works from the inside.
sure, that doesnt mean he can be trusted. the “now a fighter for democracy” bar is very high for people who did what he did, and are what he is.
I don’t think we have to trust him, but when he says things that are obviously correct then it’s worth sharing that. Also, the people that need convincing are more likely to listen to somebody like Sachs.
In 1989, Sachs advised Poland’s anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland’s reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland’s debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised on the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[33] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[34] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[35][independent source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit.[36] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[21] Based on Poland’s success, his advice was sought first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and by his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, on the transition of the USSR/Russia to a market economy.[37]
Sachs’ methods for stabilizing economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[31] He faced criticism for his role after the Russian economy faced significant struggles after adopting the market-based shock therapy in the early 1990s.[38][39][40]
Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.
But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.
Many people respond to criticism with negativity…
Says who?
The whole thing about quoting something is you don’t control what is left in or out, but yes Ukraine is a former Soviet state.
Why exactly is this supposed socialist sub defending the honor of a capitalist economist who participated in the parting out of the Soviet economy?
Is campism so strong that we are now cheerleading capitalists economists just because they support Russian nationalist?
Neither the US, Ukraine, nor Russia is even approaching socialism, so I don’t see how campism is relevant. What is relevant is imperialism vs. anti-imperialism.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/9498456
I would say a socialist defending a violent imperialist nation invading a nation simply because they are at times geopolitically opposed to another violent imperialist nation is a form of campism.
And what evidence supports the idea that it will be easier to liberate one colonizer state from a second colonizer state located right next door? Seems you are perpetuating a lot of violence based on nothing.
In what way have they liberated themselves from shock therapy? Their government is the result of shock therapy, where the vast majority of wealth is tied to an oligarchic control that’s even more hierarchal than just about any other nation in the world.
Therea no actual evidence to support thwre was a “genocide” happening in donbos. They were just doing the same form of imperialism they didn’t in 08’ in Georgia, where they participated in ethnic cleansing.
The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous if you actually look at the history Russias relations with their neighbors in the late 00’s. It’s just imperialism…
Just the small problem of thousands of murdered eastern Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian state’s efforts to systematically suppress their political representation and their language.
.
I think this can be covered with one source.
Because discussions between an administration and a head of state is now considered binding geopolitical contracts?
" the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It…used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.”
Not a very intellectually honest interpretation from this “journalistic website”
I don’t see how not following through on the minsk agreement is really provoking a war when Russia has already broken The Budapest Memorandum.
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Demanding the impossible…that NATO retract to levels back in the 90s and to prevent an invasion that had already happened is a bit far from “NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine”
The NATO chief was just repeating putina claims, not making claims.
This is ridiculous and just a historical and dishonest.
And a lot of that expansion is done while Russia wanted to join NATO , or while they were on a permanent joint council with NATO. Up until recently NATO was just an organization used to give hand outs to the American military industrial complex.
It wasn’t until their invasion of Georgia and the resulting capital pull out from Moscow that Russia even complained about NATO.
Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.
The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.
Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?
Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.
So he’s just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?
Ahh, so because you said so. Got it
Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.
And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?
I dont think that he is particularly upset.
No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.
Quote of whom?
First where does security concern equal “standing up to something”. Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?
edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.
What’s a better system then Keynes, monetarism or MMT?
I tend to not like any capitalist system as it will always decay into neoliberalism eventually.
yes even if the state does manage to buy back assets and hold them for a long time and actually run them properly as long as there are capitalists competing with the state there will always be an incentive to flog the states assets for cheap price and entshittify them it’s why social democracy is a bandaid
Money supply definitely gets looser and looser as peoples salaries are debased.
is it just me or neoliberalism always looks like its decaying back into feudalism