A paradigm shift ...or by design? Looking back - Russia's Perestroika (перестройка) vs Obama's 'Change'
A paradigm shift or by design?
Monday, August 5, 2013 at 3:19:09 PM PDT
Looking back ...Russia's Perestroika (перестройка) vs Obama's 'Change'
'A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.' -Edward R. Murrow
There are a lot of views Americans have about Vladimir Putin and Russia, left over from cold war propaganda many of us grew up with.
This isn't about that, nor what we already know about Obama. When this article was first written, Obama was fresh, and Russia was just beginning to gain traction in the global community. At the time, an analysis in comparison to newly elected Obama and Russian perspective was at the heart of the article. Now, both have history for comparison.
Unless you read carefully ...you will miss things you need to understand.
Every day as the United States under the leadership of Barack Obama sinks further in the eyes of a watching International Community and further and further behind the Eight Ball in Russian relations ...Russia and Vladimir Putin rises more and more toward the top of respected leaders.
There is a reason for this (much of which is earned) ...not by accident nor should be feared.
President Putin is a chess master in world affairs and in protecting Russia with core values that begins before following in Mikhail Gorbachev's footsteps as we learn the Nazi New World Order underestimated Russia as the Communists underestimated Christianity.
Naturally, the Bilderbergers underestimate Vladimir Putin, whom they have tried to assassinate this year where US backed terrorist Doku Umarov is implicated. PRAVDA.Ru
Perestroika vs Change
Nearly all of Humanity is affected by some form of 'change' notwithstanding world leaders collectively working together to control out-breaking global chaos.
As the world witnesses what some experts describe as a global paradigm shift, from the current economic crisis in the European Union, to the Arab Awakening, one should consider factors behind the scenes that may have an influence on geo-politics and policy ...including the United States.
The Endrun Project began looking into Russian and Chinese geo-political and geo-economic posturing after a meeting with Mr. Gorbachev in Las Vegas wherein he discussed perestroika at the University of Nevada Las Vegas UNLV.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004:
"Unless democracy addresses the social and economic problems of the people, it fails," Gorbachev said. "It is becoming increasingly clear that a stable and just world order is not possible unless we find a co-existence of different cultures."
The Endrun Project began looking into Russian and Chinese geo-political and geo-economic posturing after a meeting with Mr. Gorbachev in Las Vegas wherein he discussed perestroika at the University of Nevada Las Vegas UNLV.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004:
"Unless democracy addresses the social and economic problems of the people, it fails," Gorbachev said. "It is becoming increasingly clear that a stable and just world order is not possible unless we find a co-existence of different cultures."
Perestroika (Russian: перестройка [pʲɪrʲɪˈstrojkə] (literally: Restructuring) was a political movement within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during 1980s, widely associated with the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Its literal meaning is "restructuring", referring to the restructuring of the Soviet political and economic system.
In 2004, before anyone ever heard of or imagined a President Barack Obama ...as Mikhail Gorbachev spoke in Russian with the help of an interpreter, the message continued ...sending signals of global change reflecting on an agenda to affect the United States and Humanity that has been in the works for generations.
We Had Our Perestroika. It's High Time for Yours. By Mikhail Gorbachev Sunday, June 7, 2009
'Years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, I said to my fellow leaders around the globe: The world is on the cusp of great events, and in the face of new challenges all of us will have to change, you as well as we. For the most part, the reaction was polite but skeptical silence.
In recent years, however, during speaking tours in the United States before university audiences and business groups, I have often told listeners that I feel Americans need their own change -- a perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American perestroika -- and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.
Over time, my remark has prompted all kinds of comments. Some have reacted with understanding. Others have objected, sometimes sarcastically, suggesting that I want the United States to experience upheaval, just like the former Soviet Union.
Over time, my remark has prompted all kinds of comments. Some have reacted with understanding. Others have objected, sometimes sarcastically, suggesting that I want the United States to experience upheaval, just like the former Soviet Union.
In my country, particularly caustic reactions have come from the opponents of perestroika, people with short memories and a deficit of conscience. And although most of my critics surely understand that I am not equating the United States with the Soviet Union in its final years, I would like to explain my position.
Our perestroika signaled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the U.S. model. Today, the need for a more far-reaching perestroika -- one for America and the world -- has become clearer than ever.
It is true that the need for change in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s was urgent. The country was stifled by a lack of freedom, and the people -- particularly the educated class -- wanted to break the stranglehold of a system that had been built under Stalin. Millions of people were saying: "We can no longer live like this."
We started with glasnost -- giving people a chance to speak out about their worries without fear. I never agreed with my great countryman Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he said that "Gorbachev's glasnost ruined everything." Without glasnost, no changes would have occurred, and Solzhenitsyn would have ended his days in Vermont rather than in Russia.
At first, we labored under the illusion that revamping the existing system -- changes within the "socialist model" -- would suffice. But the pushback from the Communist Party and the government bureaucracy was too strong. Toward the end of 1986, it became clear to me and my supporters that nothing less than the replacement of the system's building blocks was needed.
We opted for free elections, political pluralism, freedom of religion and an economy with competition and private property. We sought to effect these changes in an evolutionary way and without bloodshed. We made mistakes. Important decisions were made too late, and we were unable to complete our perestroika.
Two conspiracies hijacked the changes -- the attempted coup in August 1991, organized by the hard-line opponents of our reforms, which ended up weakening my position as president, and the subsequent agreement among the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to dissolve the Union.
Russia's leaders then rejected the evolutionary path, plunging the country into chaos.
Russia's leaders then rejected the evolutionary path, plunging the country into chaos.
Nevertheless, when I am asked whether perestroika succeeded or was defeated, I reply: Perestroika won, because it brought the country to a point from which there could be no return to the past.
In the West, the breakup of the Soviet Union was viewed as a total victory that proved that the West did not need to change. Western leaders were convinced that they were at the helm of the right system and of a well-functioning, almost perfect economic model. Scholars opined that history had ended.
The "Washington Consensus," the dogma of free markets, deregulation and balanced budgets at any cost, was force-fed to the rest of the world.
The "Washington Consensus," the dogma of free markets, deregulation and balanced budgets at any cost, was force-fed to the rest of the world.
But then came the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, and it became clear that the new Western model was an illusion that benefited chiefly the very rich. Statistics show that the poor and the middle class saw little or no benefit from the economic growth of the past decades.
The current global crisis demonstrates that the leaders of major powers, particularly the United States, had missed the signals that called for a perestroika. The result is a crisis that is not just financial and economic. It is political, too.
The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable. It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility.
But if all the proposed solutions and action now come down to a mere rebranding of the old system, we are bound to see another, perhaps even greater upheaval down the road. The current model does not need adjusting; it needs replacing. I have no ready-made prescriptions.
But I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize public needs and public goods, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing.
Elements of such a model already exist in some countries. Having rejected the tutorials of the International Monetary Fund, countries such as Malaysia and Brazil have achieved impressive rates of economic growth. China and India have pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
By mobilizing state resources, France has built a system of high-speed railways, while Canada provides free health care. Among the new democracies, Slovenia and Slovakia have been able to mitigate the social consequences of market reforms.
By mobilizing state resources, France has built a system of high-speed railways, while Canada provides free health care. Among the new democracies, Slovenia and Slovakia have been able to mitigate the social consequences of market reforms.
The time has come for "creative construction," for striking the right balance between the government and the market, for integrating social and environmental factors and demilitarizing the economy.
Washington will have to play a special role in this new perestroika, not just because the United States wields great economic, political and military power in today's global world, but because America was the main architect, and America's elite the main beneficiary, of the current world economic model. That model is now cracking and will, sooner or later, be replaced. That will be a complex and painful process for everyone, including the United States.
However different the problems that the Soviet Union confronted during our perestroika and the challenges now facing the United States, the need for new thinking makes these two eras similar. In our time, we faced up to the main tasks of putting an end to the division of the world, winding down the nuclear arms race and defusing conflicts. We will cope with the new global challenges as well, but only if everyone understands the need for real, cardinal change -- for a global perestroika.'
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, heads the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies, a Moscow-based think tank.
‘We Had Our Perestroika. It’s High Time for Yours’ By Mikhail Gorbachev Sunday, June 7, 2009
Perestroika Defined
as written by Mikhail Gorbachev (1987)
Russian перестройка in Comparison with China
Perestroika and Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms have similar origins but very different effects on their respective countries' economies.
Both efforts occurred in large communist countries attempting to modernize their economies, but while China's GDP has grown consistently since the late 1980s (albeit from a much lower level), national GDP in the USSR and in many of its successor states fell precipitously throughout the 1990s. Gorbachev's reforms were largely a top-down attempt at reform, and maintained many of the macroeconomic aspects of the command economy (including price controls, inconvertibility of the ruble, exclusion of private property ownership, and the government monopoly over most means of production).
Reform was largely focused on industry and on cooperatives, and a limited role was given to the development of foreign investment and international trade. Factory managers were expected to meet state demands for goods, but to find their own funding. Perestroika reforms went far enough to create new bottlenecks in the Soviet economy, but arguably did not go far enough to effectively streamline it.
Chinese economic reform was, by contrast, a bottom-up attempt at reform, focusing on light industry and agriculture (namely allowing peasants to sell produce grown on private holdings at market prices). Economic reforms were fostered through the development of "Special Economic Zones", designed for export and to attract foreign investment, municipally-managed Township and Village Enterprises and a "dual pricing" system leading to the steady phasing out of state-dictated prices. Greater latitude was given to managers of state-owned factories, while capital was made available to them through a reformed banking system and through fiscal policies (in contrast to the fiscal anarchy and fall in revenue experienced by the Soviet government during perestroika).
Another fundamental difference is that where perestroika was accompanied by greater political freedoms under Gorbachev's glasnost policies, Chinese economic reform has been accompanied by continued authoritarian rule and a suppression of political dissidents, most notably at Tiananmen Square.
2009: Perestroika vs Change
The concept of Perestroika and even ‘Change’ as we hear it through the last Presidential campaign and election, contains some truth, wisdom and common sense we can all learn from… just enough that on face value, we want to accept it all as truth.
The warning is that in order to understand what ‘change’ is, discernment is necessary; because behind the ‘truth’ and wisdom is deception to further an agenda.
Communists/Marxists and the spirit of Perestroika has a purpose in drawing America into their control. They refer to Americans as ’sheeple’* who are led and manipulated like sheep to follow as unfortunately, we have proven as exemplified in our lifestyles orchestrated by the media.
Change Defined
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING
Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt
1:10 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT OBAMA
Excerpt :
‘All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort — a sustained effort — to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It’s easier to start wars than to end them. It’s easier to blame others than to look inward. It’s easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There’s one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.’
Beware
In 2009 The Endrun Project wrote:
'The months ahead in the Obama Administration will begin to reveal the TRUE AGENDA.'
On the Flip Side
What people think is largely what they are programmed to think and seldom how things really are until they are blindsided with a undesirable reality.
See The Endrun Project: 2013 Crisis' by design*
On the other hand the orchestrators often deceive themselves ...having less to do with reality than they realize.
Where does all this take us?
Theory
While Russian strategy could be a factor in geo-politics ...Russia sees The United States as the villain behind the scenes:
The theory of 'manageable chaos' put into practice 01.03.2011Sergei Shashkov, political scientist *International Affairs -Russia
Recent events perfectly fit into the US-invented concept of 'manageable chaos' (also known as 'controlled instability' theory). Among its authors are: Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish American political scientist, Gene Sharp, who wrote From Dictatorship to Democracy, and Steven Mann, whose Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought was published in Washington in 1992, and who was involved in plotting 'color revolutions' in some former Soviet republics.
These are key principles of the 'manageable chaos' theory:
- to unite various political groups against existing government
- to undermine a country leaders` confidence in themselves and in loyalty of the army
- destabilization of the situation with the help of aggressive protesters and criminals
- to topple existing regime through a coup or during the so-called 'democratic elections'
*Founded in 1954 by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Affairs is a leading foreign politics monthly with wide audiences in Russia and other countries. The International Affairs council is chaired by Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov.
If you know where and how to look beyond political snippets and sound bytes on FOX and CNN The Obama Administration has in fact revealed many mysteries behind actions appearing as failure.Drill down and search for yourself as a pattern of the ‘agenda’ unfolds ...understanding that Perestroika (перестройка) is only a small part of a much grander design.
see: Perestroika; Glasnost ;
* ‘American decent into Marxism’ 27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru
‘We Had Our Perestroika. It’s High Time for Yours’ By Mikhail Gorbachev Sunday, June 7, 2009
Is This You?
Other than the smell which separates them, like 'sheeple' ...dead fish are best known for going with the flow.
3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist; 2 Timothy 4, 3-5
Watch out that no one deceives you! Matthew 24
