Another opportunity for Russia

Throughout its tumultuous history Russia has went through a number of evolutions and revolutions that presented enormous opportunities to reinvent itself. One of the first of these defining moments could be interpreted to be the reforms by Peter I. Or the failed Decembrist revolt. But more importantly, the assassination of Alexander II, which thwarted the establishment of a duma, well before Nicholas II would be forced to accept one. There is no discussion that a well-established parliamentary system would have altered later evolutions, by funnelin griefs through political representatives. For instance the revolution of 1905 and both revolutions of 1917 could have played uit quite differently, if they would have even happened. We can add to this long list of defining moments the Civil War ensuing 1917 and eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union. Through every single one of these moments, hope glimmered and Russians have caught glimpses of freedom. Yet always, these hopes have been foiled, while undemocratic power-brokers came to the fore.

Today, it appears, yet again, things are starting to shift in Russia. For the first time in decades, a credibly opposition to current power-brokers in the Kremlin is taking shape. Let us hope that this time around, the Russian people seize the moment, remembering the weight of the history they have carry to this day. If there is a people that has had to endure unending suffering, it is the Russians. But few have so little to show for it, today.

Update top 10 crooks

We are glad to update our top 10 list with some happenings: number 2 and number 9 on the 2011 top ten list of crooks have deceased. A great loss for the afterlife, yet the living cannot help bu triumph.

Mr. Khadafi will not be missed by anyone. Concerning mr. Jong-Il, the only reason you would be missed, is if your son manages to perform even worse deeds, or for lack of the terror you sowed, people will try to fill the void by their own.

Proxy government

The markets are sly and very well adapted to hiding their tentacles. No rich consumer, producer or misappropriated hungry owner of goods produced on fertile Ethiopian soil ever knows the magical interaction underlying their ethically problematic exchanges. Not even the distributors or government agents pushing these policies have to realize the full scope of what they enact. Everyone has pieces of papers to hide behind, and beautiful policies of development.

It is therefore quite ironic, to see the markets turn against some of its most enthusiastic supporters of the last half century. Western governments, be they socialist, liberal or 'independent' are running the rat race, pushed to the brink by the turmoil in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And though the 'greatest common denominator' farce of American politics has long settled down in Europe, too, we can see how grand old political 'identities' melt away under the pressure.

No matter who gets elected, regardless of their identity and promises. It is official now: it is the market that rules us. It decides when we get up and when we go to sleep. What we eat, how long we eat it for. What we study, what is deemed 'valuable' (and isn't it beautiful that this word is such a double-edged sword, has gradually eloped its original meaning and has now turned on us) as a skill or as knowledge.

Whereas economy used to mean: oiko-nomia: the laws (or management) of the house. A 'rational' way to manage our household and patrimony as individuals, it has slowly encompassed ever greater wholes. It has now become a very efficient means for the mobilization of labour, though the goals are no longer subservient to our needs. Our needs have become subservient to its goals, which are ill-defined and quite irrational. There is the vain promise of progress, but what is progress but a very human goal? Who or what defines progress? Is it nowadays about nothing but novelty? About making more money in ever shorter spurts? Doesn't that go at the expense of the long-term efficiency of economic production itself?

It seems the only thing we can compare the current economic system with, is a virus. It spreads, multiplies, reproduces itself in ever more advanced models, to attain more control over its environment. But it is so wildly successful that it is choking its hosts: humanity and the planet. Ebola was a very dramatic disease, but because it was such a swift killer, it never lasted long beyond its initial outbreaks. It was not a smart disease. HIV is enormously more successful, as it takes its time to spread, then kill.

Will the economy prove to be a slow or a swift killer? Or will its hosts prove resilient enough to develop with it, as it becomes endemic, while the two learn to define and develop one another, as is the case in so many symbiotic relationships? I am most curious to find out.