Global Warming: are we handling it right?

It seems since the 1960s when environmental concerns became an issue to be concerned with, that each decade we face and fight some major environmental disaster which threatens to inevitably kill us all, if we don’t do something about it. Back in the 1980s it was the Ozone hole… did they make us feel guilty for having a fridge, an A/C or using a deodorant? With time it turned out the gas in question was actually one of the main components needed for the formation of new ozone!!! Furthermore, it turned out that a simple volcano puffs out many times more of the same gas each time it decided to burp. It turned out that the hole was always there, growing bigger or smaller, and that we really had nothing to do with it. But a decade of talking, of changing, of adopting policies and legislations passed, together with billions of cash spent on scientific research, and what for? Basically, for nothing.

Today is the Global warming “disaster” we are faced with. First it were our cars responsible, now it is well acknowledged that it is yet again one of those natural processes that we cannot really control nor can we effect. By now however the Global warming has been well used for major international agreements, trillions go for more scientific research, and the whole story repeats itself again.

Personally, I have no problem with that, if some smart people found a way to use ignorance to make money, good for them. What worries me is if the fact that a natural process of gradual warming, which brings about (and will continue to do so) some changes in the flora and fauna in certain regions of our planet, is NOT taken into serious account! So far our response seems to be based on the presumption that if we do this or that or the other, we can actually prevail, and things will remain unchanged… which to my view is complete non-sense.

If science says that in X amount of time water levels will raise up with Y amount, is anything being done to relocate the settlements which one day might find themselves under water? If climate will change therefore preventing certain agricultural produce being grown, is anyone thinking what else could be done to replace this with something that will work under the new changed environmental conditions? Because if what the scientists are saying today is true, then people better start planning for the upcoming and inevitable changes of tomorrow, as to avoid any major economic or other disaster resulting from those changes.

Other issues which intrigue my mind are: if nature has decided to change, then what is it doing that for? Is it because the population is growing, and more fertile land is needed to feed that extra population? Or is it another natural phenomenon we cannot find a logical explanation to, so as usual we try to exploit it as a profitable financial speculation? Or is it that some Hegel devotees are trying to use such naturally occurring phenomenon for their own political aims?

Russia and The New World Order

Are we witnessing a change of world order? Sure we are. Ever since the last conflict in South Ossetia, it became clear that Russia is no more a crippled left-over of the Soviet Union, but a new rising power. I think this was already clear in the past five years, but somehow it was never stressed publicly as it was done in this past month of August.

The general outcome largely formed by our western media seems to suggest that we are heading towards a new “Cold War.” Are we really? In my opinion, the answer is: definitely not!

The cold war rhetoric came back in fashion simply because we in the west yet again have failed to understand Russia, and our inexcusable ignorance could come up with nothing new but the old and worn “cold war” term. The global situation today however is far from what it was during the so called Cold War period in the last century. Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore; it is not living within its own communist world surrounded by minefields, border guards, walls, barb wire, radio and TV suppression. It is part of the world, heavily integrated economically and socially. What is more, Russia does not want to isolate itself, like old Soviet Union did. On the contrary, it seeks to integrate itself even more.

So, why the disagreement? The answer is simple: Russia refuses to accept the single polar international system, where basically the US takes the final decisions. “…the world must be multi-polar. Single polarity is unacceptable…" recently stated Russia’s president. Obviously, United States and its ruling elite could not be happy at all about that. Those of it, who could already see the so called New World Order taking over, are sure disappointed at the new realities. They will be forced to deal with Russia, and soon perhaps with some kind of a new economic or military bloc, formed by Russia and China, and perhaps also India. The prospects of ruling the world single-handedly have become smaller than ever.

So, what is next? Many might say, “well, depends on what the west will do next” but it really does not, as we have no choice but to adopt to the new realities and work with the Russians on par, rather than dictate them our commands in different ways and expect them to follow them obediently, as was the case in the 1990s. The fact that Russia today is an integral part of the world makes it even stronger, than the Soviet Union ever was. I will explain why.

Russia today is the main and irreplaceable source of energy to most of Europe. This tendency will grow even more so in the foreseeable future, due to the new energy links established between Russia and many EU countries, among which are some of the original EU member states. In other words, energy dependency on Russia is not solely spread among the new member states, mostly former Soviet “satellites,” but is also spreading over the countries of the former Western bloc. This was not the case back in the Cold war era.

Energy however is not the sole reason, Russia is a main source of all types of row materials, plus it is a fast growing market for the European made goods. Russia has large foreign investments in its economy, which despite the recent tensions keep on growing, and mind you the business community will not allow its investments being lost over some insignificant political quarrels, or the support of a little nationalist-frenzy state such as Georgia.

Capital or money to put it simply. Our western economy is heavily dependent on the large stacks of Russian money “stuffed” in western banks. During the 1990s Russia was heavily exporting energy and row materials, and most of the money for these exports remained and still do in the West. If Russia decides to pull them out, mark my words: we will be in DEEP trouble. We cannot really do much about that, if we “freeze” their funds, we face the prospect of having them melt again by the blasts of Russia’s mean nuclear war machine.

In terms of military terms, the situation had not changed an inch since the Cold war; Russia still has its nuclear potential, so war is really out of the question, since it will result in total world destruction. Even if nukes are not used, it is simply impossible to occupy Russia, as it is too BIG.

So, we cannot fight them, we cannot occupy them, we cannot isolate them, and what is left is the only real option available: we have to work with them. The faster our western leaders, especially those in the US realize that (no matter how bitter this truth might be) the better for us.

Norway – No Way!

I had a trip to Norway, which was nice but also quite shocking! The nice part was the nature, the people were also very nice, and the food was great! As weird as it felt, I found a lot of similarities with Bulgaria, and other countries, most probably because of the same trees and nature over all, it felt quite familiar. I’d say it a great place to go for hiking and sleeping in generally relaxing in the nature around you. Food was also good, lots of great sea stuff, shrimps, fish, you name it. Last but not least, people were very friendly, always ready to help you, to show you, to explain, in two words very welcoming.

But it was the social system which was shocking for me, and made me sit and write those lines. Norway is basically cash-less society. I’d say 90% is credit/debit cards and 10% is cash. They all go around with their plastic cards and pay everywhere with them. You might see this as perfectly normal, but I do not. If they wish they can easily stop the rest of the cash in circulation even tomorrow. What is worrying here is: what is a person to do, if there was no cash, and for whatever reasons the government or the bank stops, blocks your plastic card? What is one to do? Just the thought that all your “money” and basically ability to live in society will be dependent on a bank or a government is scary enough!

The Norwegians do not seem to worry about such possibilities. They truly believe in their government and their system. This system in a very simple but totally effective way to control their lives fully! If the government does not wish its citizens to spend their money for particular things, they simply put enormous tax on those things (usually with some shallow but good intended motive) and there it is, people simply do not get the thing/s in question, because it becomes too expensive for them. If the government decides that its citizens should do this or the other, it starts throwing money at the citizens, and they go for it. In fact I was told that the government had officially announced to the people to spend their money for travel and culture, as this helps keep inflation in reasonable boundaries! So, the Norwegians started traveling.

The system leads and shapes the way people should live. It taxes single men of up to 82%, and single women with a kid of 23% only, while giving them apartment, extra money and kindergarten for the kid. As nice as this might look at first glance, this system is directly aimed against the traditional family as a unit in society. I still think that family is a result of natural need of the human beings, rather than thought necessity, and therefore do not agree with the idea that family should be abolished, as the infamous Marx and Engels did. However this modern system in effect does exactly that.

As someone born under communism, I will never ever trust any government. I do believe that people have brains to make decisions for themselves, and that the government should play as minimal role as possible in people’s lives. Norway’s way is some modern replica of our old totalitarian system, with which I want nothing to do. Norway, No way!

Italian Voters: Realists or Idealists?

Today is yet another post-election, result-awaiting day in Italy. And yet again, I am left wondering: how much influence do real political and social changes have on their vote, and how much of it is influenced by pure idealism?

Well, as in most developed democracies the elections are usually a struggle between two main opponents. In Italy the two main figures are Berlusconi vs. Prodi. Or, right vs. left if you prefer.

For most Italians all of their politicians are simple crooks. But Berlusconi seems to be presented as the biggest one, probably because of his wealth. Berlusconi won elections back in 2001 and managed to sustain his full mandate, something very unusual for the Italian post-WWII political life. Most anti-Berlusconi voters, besides the usual apologetics about him being a crook and Mafioso, state that during his full term his government did not do anything for the people. Yet, taxes were not raised during Berlusconi’s rule!

Then came Prodi again, and the taxes went up again, with the dubious explanation, that by raising the taxes for all, his government would make sure that the rich would also pay their taxes. While in office, last December Italy was basically paralyzed by a huge strike, supermarkets were left without fresh food, no fuel in the gas stations, and basically all were affected, including the businesses, which lost huge profits because of this strike. As a Christmas surprise, Napoli was left buried under its own garbage, which besides endangering the health and life of millions of people, also resulted in 60% drop in tourism in Napoli, which is the main business of this important Italian city. Ironically, Napoli is known to vote left, that is Prodi!

Back in spring 2000, under Prodi, there was again a major strike which resulted in shortages of fuel, and days of forced economic stagnation and loss of money.

Somehow, these facts do not seem to affect the view of the left voters, and this is probably because a lot of them are dependant workers who live on monthly salary, rather than owners who run a private business.

From my experience, most private business owners in Italy vote right, they vote Berlusconi, and there is a logic to that, there is stability and less governmental influence on business under Berlusconi, while the left with its policies seem to only cause disruptions and huge loss of money to these businesses. Ironically the left-voters do not seem to grasp that if the business they are working for, and out of which they get their money is not doing well, their pay won’t rise, and even more, their jobs could be endangered.

It seems that people do not realize that the problems in Italy, are not directly connected to right or to the left, but are inherited. In fact many of them are considered “problems” only because the political forces have publicly identified them as such, without even analyzing them, if they are real problems.

Luckily, most voters in Italy seem to still prefer a relative stability, which allows them to work and prosper, rather than unjustified “reforms” which only result in total economic chaos and loss of money, which are also paid for these same common people, whose taxes were raised.

From Totalitarian to Civil Society?

Recent news about Russia and talks about building up a civil society there made me think about this issue. At first, this sounds hilarious, especially to your average Joe from the Western world, and why shouldn’t it? After all, Democracy and civil society is somewhat reserved terms used to describe the political and social spheres of the developed Western countries, namely USA, EU, Canada, etc. Now, since the general view in these countries about Russia and its political and social system are overwhelmingly critical, it is but abnormal for the average Joe to see such plans as simple non-sense. What is shocking here, however, is that if you were to ask this same Joe what civil society is, he wouldn’t know what to answer!

In fact, what is civil society?

According to Wikipedia: “Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system) and commercial institutions.” (To all of you political scientists, I do know that civil society is far more complicated, and I do know that there are tons of literature published on this issue, however, what is missing, is a simple and clear explanation of what civil society really is, i.e., one which would be understood by this same average Joe, that was why I chose to use Wikipedia’s definition.)

Well, it seems to be a scale between “voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions” and “force-backed structures of a state… and commercial institutions.” So, according to the logic of this definition, the more voluntary organizations, the more civil the society is. I would add that those organizations have to be somewhat active and capable of real-life political lobbying, meaning that they could influence the decision-making process in the society, via the government. The idea is that through such organizations, the general public may have a better say over the decision-making process. I guess the idea came about, as the classic case of free parliamentary elections, proved to be unproductive, to say the least. That is, the idea that people choose their own representative or MP to parliament, so that he or she could represent their interests in the decision-making process and/or law-making process. At some point people realized that this formula works poorly, if at all. Hence, the voluntary organizations which seem to be used as means to mobilize the public and make it more present at the decision-making table. This is perhaps all too obvious for you, however, how many of you did you ever see this as failure of one of the main fundamentals of Democracy? I mean, we identify a problem, and we try to find a solution, which is all great, but did we stop for a moment and try to see the picture as a whole? Not really, most prefer to keep on believing in the system. In fact, how many of you have ever tried to observe these aspects in detail, and ask some questions? For example, how much real say do all those countless social organizations, non-profit organizations, etc. etc. actually do have in our modern society? And how much of this say is actually relevant to our way of life? What does it take for such organizations to be created?

I would say that an idea to fight for and finance are the two major parts needed for the creation of such voluntary organization. Hence, governments and business entities provide enormous finances for the creation of and subsidizing of such organizations. Someone once said, you only need a sensible idea and few funding applications to create a non-profit or voluntary organization. Sure, the organization might not make a profit, but it sure sustains its members financially, in the name of whatever its goal is. Again, nothing spectacular here, until we get beck to the fundamental idea of civil society: it is a scale! So, it turns out, instead of opposing or counterbalancing the business and governmental institutions in the decision-making, they rather assist them in the process, by adding more legality to the decisions taken by the government! In fact I would argue, that our modern Democratic system is nothing more but a curtain of smoke a camouflage over the reality, which provides the public with the illusion that decisions taken were somehow taken with their approval. OK, I know you might think that this is radical, however, what other logical conclusion could one make after examining the facts?

What might sound ridiculous today (i.e., building civil society in Russia) might turn out to be something innovative and more successful, than what we deem to be a developed civil society here in the west. Let me explain. The fundamental differences between us and the Russians are actually quite simple: they refuse to play by our whistle! In other words they are sovereign and able to decide their own way of development and society-building, which might or might not resemble our parameters of democracy. I would claim that even if the Russians actually achieve a high and acceptable, even to our standards, democracy, we would still criticize them, or claim they have not done it, simply because they will continue to take their own decisions, irrelevant of what we say. I’ve come understand this western attitude by simply observing how the west deals with other developing countries striving to build up their own democratic systems. The moment such countries begin to follow our policies, this is the moment, when our critique towards their questionable democratic systems suddenly stops, and is usually replaced by bouquets of compliments and words of support. Republic of Georgia is very fine example of such a practice at the moment. The point being, until Russia unconditionally surrenders her sovereignty to us, we would always criticize it, despite her real achievements in building democracy and civil society. Therefore, taking for granted our own western specialists’ views on Russia would be unserious to say the least, simply because they are bias. Hence, we should try and examine Russia independently, even if her future role would end up being again our enemy in a warmer version of the Cold War.

No matter what John McCain and others claim about Russia, there are few facts we need to understand and accept about Russian society today. Despite all of our criticism about Russia’s elections, today the majority or Russian people actually do support Putin, Medvedev and their party. And there is nothing surprising about that: after Yeltsin’s era of instability, economic and social chaos, drastic drop of standard of living, major war in Chechnya, and last but not least, out of hand crime rise, the Russian people for first time experienced return to normality, return of stability, slow but constant rise in living standard, social and political order, economic growth and in general better times. All of that was brought about by Putin and his party, by the people who took power in 2000 and continue to successfully rule the country. I often do not understand our own western perspective towards the Russians: when they suffer, when they are living in chaos, we fully support the policies of their government, and when they begin to recover, to live better, to get richer, we immediately start to criticize their government and its policies?! Why is that? Is it because our own political elite is still overstaffed with some conservative Cold War era airheads, who still want to “nuke the damn commies” and feel chest pain every time they see the Russians doing better? Well, I don’t know, but it makes me think about the origins of the Cold War, and how much of it was the responsibility of Stalin’s pre-WWII plans to conquer the world, and how much of our western interests and plans to basically do the same?

So, civil society in Russia?

Why not? The mentality of their society is very much open or even pre-conditioned if you wish for civil society practices. Most Russians believe in social justice, and by this I mean somewhat social equality, where they do care that the other people should have a better life, and they actually try to help achieve this common goal, not only morally believe in it as is the case with most of our western societies! This has to do with the massive equality propaganda which was ruling these people’s lives for decades during the age of Communism. Thus, today the government in Russia is very much heavily involved in running sectors of life, which in the USA are usually privately run. It is because of that, that the people are involved and are expected to be involved in the decision-making process within Russia, and it is this natural, in their case, need that requires them to speed up and build up a more developed and active civil society.

The past eight years have shown to everyone in Russia that the existing governmental and bureaucratic structures in the country were very much limiting the efficient and faster reconstruction of the country, and therefore it requires more than ever a heavier involvement of the public. Russia now has the money, and what it needs is structures to make use of them and turn them into usable infrastructure, usable for the people, not for one or another company, which is often the case in our own western system. Such move provides the government with both, the ability to faster build up the country, and as a result the moral and political support of its own people.

I hope that Medvedev will make a full use of this potential and despite what we say or think of them, the Russians will emerge as a healthy and functional civil society.

From USSR to Russia Today

Almost 17 years passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and yet most people have no real clue how and why it happened. Nor do they suspect that the past 17 years leading to what Russia has become today, were all rooted to early 1980’s and the infamous Yurii Andropov, the longest serving chief of the KGB (1967-1982), and later a General-Secretary of the Politburo of the KPSS.

I will not go in details here, but will try to provide a short and general description of the whole process.

In 1980 Andropov under his own order received 10 independent analysis reports about the future of the USSR. All of them conclude the inevitable economic collapse of the economic and thus also the political system. Based on those news, Andropov with few individuals (almost all of them KGB, but also CIA operatives) draw up a plan, (which he signs before his death) to basically “dismantle” the existing political-economic system in the USSR and replace it with wild capitalism, which was aimed to discourage the Russian people from democracy and free market economy, and later use this as the fundamental to build up a new “modern socialism.”

Since the plan was radical to say the least, and could not have been officially implemented, Andropov and company recruited different individuals from the KGB, the party nomenclature and army to carry out this plan. From the information available today, it seems that while still alive Andropov personally met and instructed these individuals, no matter how low they stood in the hierarchy. The dismantling process was planned to take 10 years plus minus 2, and M. Gorbachev was chosen to be the last general-secretary to carry it out.

As we know now, the plan was carried out pretty much as planned, and only few unexpected events took place, with which the chosen people dealt with accordingly, thus assuring the successful result of it. The people in charge were also smart enough to use their “official” enemies US and Western Europe, to get even more money for doing what they were doing anyway. The US on the other hand, despite all the popular reports about the CIA plan to dismantle Russia into 10 or so smaller countries, did not want that for the two simple reasons: 1) it was easier to control and insure that no world nuclear catastrophe takes place involving the massive nuclear arsenal of the ex-USSR, in post Soviet Russia and 2) strong Russia was and still is needed as a counter balance to the US, thus insuring the survival of the US as a dominant world power (or empire if you wish).

Here the interests of the ex-Soviet elite and the US matched and they managed to sustain the unity of Russia, through the Yeltsin period, which was the period of the planned disillusionment of the people of democracy and capitalism.

Many political scientists in their criticism of Russian politics during the 1990’s forget that the opposition in Russia then was not the powers striving for democracy, but those striving for return of the old system and the resurrection of the USSR. These were powers made up of lower ranking nomenclature people, who were never informed about the whole plan, and in 1991 found out that they were unemployed. These were the people who stood behind the two unsuccessful tries to take power by coups d'état, in 1991 and 1993.

The era of introducing the “modern socialism” in Russia began with Putin coming to power in 2000. Ever since, he and his team (although to be correct, the team is not his, but he is part of the team) managed to stabilize the country, the economy, and to insure their being in power at least for the next eight years, now that Medvedev succeeded Putin as Russia’s president.

What is next for Russia?

Nothing spectacular, Russia is to become (already is in fact) the balancing world power, which the US needs as much. So, the recent reintroductions of military patrols by the Russian military forces, and the renewed show of muscles by Russia is very much needed and expected, as Russia’s role of a balancing power, which by the way also serves for strengthening the feeling of pride among the Russians, and thus unity and greater support for their government.

Why not western style democracy in Russia?

The ruling elite in Russia, and some of the foreigners who helped them, seem to believe that historically the Russian people always fought their rulers and their rulers always fought them back. The reason behind is explained with the pre-Russian state of social order among the Slavic people, who lived in harmony without a king. Thus, when it was introduced it sparked a constant “internal war” in Russia. How much of this is true, and how much of it is being used by those who rule Russia to keep their autocratic manner of power is unclear, but is certainly clear that it prevented a serious try to introduce a western style democracy in Russia after the collapse of the USSR.

What is the Conclusion?

I believe that we should stop constantly insisting from the Russians to adopt our system, and our version of democracy, which is dubious enough, but since a better alternative does not exist so far, we take it for granted! Most westerners do not understand the Russians, and have no clue of their traditions and beliefs, which by the way do not go hand in hand with ours!!! Nevertheless, the Russians have their right to choose the way they live, and today this is very much true, despite the critics from us about suppression of opposition and questionable election results in Russia. I would say, that by the next elections, provided that the government continues its current line of investment in the country and improvement of the standard of living of its citizens, it will not need to suppress anyone, since the majority of the people will vote for them anyway, due to the positive results they would experience in their private lives.

Besides, Russia today is very much a sovereign country both economically and politically, and most of all is an irreplaceable partner of the EU, especially as an energy provider. So, why bother business with useless political criticism? I mean, when was the last time anyone criticized the UAE for their lack of democracy, for example?

On Democracy Today

Political science and the study of democracy in the West, reminds me more and more of what Marxism-Leninism studies used to be back in the communist era: a legal academic means of justifiably legalizing the political and social reality then. The ideology is different, but the goal and way of achieving it is the same. Instead of promoting some positive changes in the system, to make it “more democratic” or “transparent,” which in my view should be increased control of the public vis-à-vis the government and the policies which this government takes in the name of the public, what seems to be the case, is a simple but effective means of camouflaging the real politics, in some pseudo-rhetoric image of democracy, and celebration of its achievements.

Number of political scientists, directly link the economic welfare of the citizens to this system, which if nothing else, is done without a single proof: it taken for granted. This however is not the case, since there are enough examples of non-democratic states, which citizens enjoy even higher standard of living than those in the democratic world.

The question is: does anyone actually think of how to improve the existing democratic system, in order to bring it closer to what people claim it is, or it should be? So far, I only see endless articles of why should people and states adopt this system (or else), and not much about how should we change the system so, that democratically elected governments pay more attention to those who elected them, than merely see their democratic election as a justification to undertake policies, which in many cases are directly opposed by these same people who elected them!