Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Oh-kay. So Socialism is responsible for the demographic catastrophe in Russia since 1992. Suppose I agree. Where does that leave your idea about a Gorbachev-style "soft kill" for Iran? Its obvious from the example of Russia that trying to open to the West is a high-risk, high-cost strategy, and the chance of Western strategists saying "it's your own fault if your people are now dying off" if/when the Gini coefficient goes through the roof and the standard of living drops for tens of millions and the demographic hit occurs can't make the decision to drop the shields against markets and liability any easier.

The trouble is, Russia's present condition, and the BS the Russian government is getting from the West while they're recovering, are powerful arguments against would-be Iranian "Reformers". What can they say in reply?

What a magnificent response! Your personal understanding of communist Russia history really was well displayed here. I fully agree with you.

Two words: youth bulge. Iran's got its own demographic problems--namely, all those pissed-off 20-30yr olds without jobs. Development and free trade represent a safety valve for that internal pressure. Busy, gainfully employed young men have less time (and inclination) for uprisings.

Yes, I can see how large numbers of pissed-off unemployed young adults is an advantage when jobs are destroyed due to exposure to markets and liability. After all, so many jobs were created by reforming the Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, and Iraqi economies. Not.

Looks to me like there will be plenty more pissed-off unemployed young adults, with lots more time for plotting revolution if the Iranian government drops the shields against markets and liability.

"the chance of Western strategists saying "it's your own fault if your people are now dying off" if/when the Gini coefficient goes through the roof"

This doesn't follow. Income inequality can rise for a number of reasons. Both Poland and Russia have seen inequality rise since the fall of the Soviet bloc. Does this mean that the Poles are dying off?

Your larger point is a reasonable one: is a go-fast or go-slow strategy best? It's clear that China's decades-long liberalization has worked well, but equally clear that the rapid transition to liberal market economies in eastern Europe was wise.

So what would I say to specific policy questions? Simply this: it's a matter for the technocrats.

What would I say for the larger point, liberatlization or statis for Iran: liberalization. Because the longer a country is illiberal, the worse her future is (as Russia so clearly demonstrates).

I am beyond outrage at RKKA's defense of totalitarian regimes. Maybe that's what life is like in academia, sit around in Starbucks with your laptop and reminisce about the "good old days" of Stalin, Mao, Hussein and Khomeine. My heart bleeds everyday for those individuals stuck in those squalid living conditions that RKKA wants to perpetuate. It is our duty as human beings to help those poor souls in the purgatory that is totalitarianism.

"...so many jobs were created by reforming the Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, and Iraqi economies. Not."

You have it wrong.

Look at Figure 2 from this article from the New Left Review (how's that for a "neocon" source?):

http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2658

You can see the drop-off then growth in all the post-communist countries. The basic pattern is the same for all of them. The ones that were the most thoroughly Stalinized are the ones recovering most slowly.

Tom is right. Communism was poison. The recovery process will be painful.

Anyway, George Kennan predicted this exact thing in the late 40s. He said that social cohesion in the Soviet Union was based solely on state power, which had destroyed everything else, and that once the Party lost control the USSR would go from being a formidable foe to a disorganized mass at a single stroke. He was absolutely right, a prophet. Now they are repairing the damage. It took 70 years to destroy the place. Lets see how long it takes to get it off the hospital gurney.

RKKA needs to pay more attention on Iran, because my point already and better proven there (he thumbs, muttering "duh!" to himself).

Iran's demo bomb already exploded. Huge drop in fertility and worst brain drain in world, according to IMF. If and when Iran opens up, someone will erroneously cite that as causality too.

Already blogged all this, so enough remedial education.

China had much more historical experience with entrepreneurial efforts and markets than Russia. Russia's experience gap existed before Stalin.

One of the American experiments in trying to give Russia experience with entreprenurial efforts involved a State Department effort to foster small community women's local businesses. The women in these locations did not have the Russian male orientation towards big planned government or big macho corporations. Ms. Hillary Clinton helped the experiment in the field. Someone should ask her about her insights.

The technique was not revolutionary. The Mennonites have used it for decades in austere environments which the media just covers for its male violence & hurt pride stories.

I have to compliment Dan on one of his smoother comment section performances. You beat me to the punch.

Others have made the point in different ways, but just to hammer it home: It's not a question of if, but how fast. Iran will, eventually, have to decide how quickly it wants to integrate. The longer it waits to *start*, however, the bigger the hill it has to climb.

Unlike other closed economies (N. Korea, Cuba (sorta), Myanmar), Iran does not have the sort of strong, natural allies that can help to weather the storm with economic aid. Iran is in for a tough ride, methinks.