Where I'm going with it is this. 1991 from 1917. Consider where the communists came from to where they got to. The same will be true of their capitalists. 1991 to 2065. In 2065 will they have the magnificent Hermitage or will the rich of bought the rest of it and returned it to their class. Will the Bolshoi and the other theaters, especially the small ones that gave us the Horostovskis and the farm league for the great theaters still exist or will they have degenerated to the Russian version of Garth Brooks and Celine?
Joseph Lhevinne wrote in 1917 that Russia was old and great but that Russian musical art was recent. Indeed the great school of Russian pianists that extends down to the present began with an Irishman John Field who settled in Moscow in the early 19th century. But the Russians took to this recently evolved instrument like a duck to water. Their first great composer Glinka was a singer. Great singers and great pianists have flowered from Russia and formed a wave of excellence that once the Wall came down, flooded the world like a loving Tsunami. The question here is this. Music in Russia, like music in Europe, flowed from the Aristocracy but it's great mass accomplishments are recent. Since 1917. Will the current Capitalists shrink the Russian educational miracle to the size of the wealthy as has happened here or will they grow it? If they accept market principles of profit over all else, it will dissipate. The next seventy years will show whether capitalism is capable of sustaining a great cultural tradition or whether it just feeds on the carcass of the conquest like the English when they gave up to Handel and killed their own national school in favor of a German writing Italian music in English. They thought they had become "International" but what they had done was give up their identity only to be saved by the spoken word of the theater and that's largely true today in the world of spoken English. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 5:14 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Why Americans won't do dirty jobs- Business- US business - Bloomberg Businessweek - msnbc.com Not too sure of where we're going with this, Ray. The Russia I saw in 1994 was a chaotic place and really quite evil. Nevertheless the arts continued. I went to both the Bolshoi in Moscow and the Marinsky (Sp?) in St. Petersburg. In the latter place, I also went to the magnificent Hermitage Gallery and saw some of the world's greatest Renaissance art, some of which was sold off shortly thereafter to keep the place going. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Ray Harrell <mailto:[email protected]> To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Why Americans won't do dirty jobs- Business- US business - Bloomberg Businessweek - msnbc.com You seem to be making a good case for original sin. I would just say that they are uncultured. When this "crew" dies off in Russia then they will begin to disassemble the cultural mechanism that began with Glinka and flowered in the Soviet System. At that time we will see just how much Mother Russia exists. The Russians here seem to be playing out in the Capitalist not for profit system. Put far too simply but with a kernel of truth, they seem to need an external motivation to keep up their discipline but then so did Maria Callas who flowered fast and was deflowered by Onassis and never recovered. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:08 AM To: [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Why Americans won't do dirty jobs - Business- US business - Bloomberg Businessweek - msnbc.com Where I'd disagree with you is on your reference to "a widespread deliberate strategy", which is what Naomi Klein appeared to suggest in her continuous references to the Chicago School. The Chicago School, inheriting their doctrine from the Austrian School did espouse free market economics, but ever so many of the perpetrators of social disasters that led to seizures of society's assets did not attend the University of Chicago nor is it likely that they even read Straus, Friedman et. al. When I was in Russia in 1994, the government under Yeltsin was desperately trying to create a free market economy. Here's an entry from my diary on what I saw happening: Jacques Sapir (a French economist who has written about it) is right in saying that Russian inflation is not a monetary phenomenon. It is market and policy driven. There are strong, opportunistic monopoly elements behind it, and it is not difficult to conclude that the whole process of "reform" was a get rich scheme perpetrated by the powerful. As well as being highly disruptive, its main economic effect has been redistributional, enriching the few and impoverishing the many. Its main political effect has been to drive a wedge between the people and the government, even though many in government are not really to blame. Its main effect morally has been to foster a level of corruption, cynicism and apathy that will take a very long time to shake out of the system. And of course the oligarchs (very few of whom would have read any economics) then took over and Jeffrey Sachs (Harvard not Chicago educated), not really understanding what was going on, helped create the conditions that allowed them to do it. My argument, essentially, is that clever, ruthless people do take advantage of social disasters such as the chaos that followed the collapse of communism and may even have helped to move the situation toward chaos. Whether or not they had any association with the economics taught by the Chicago School or any other institution hardly seems relevant, Naomi Klein's arguments not withstanding. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Spencer" < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> To: < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:12 AM Subject: [Futurework] Re: Why Americans won't do dirty jobs - Business- US business - Bloomberg Businessweek - msnbc.com > > Ed wrote: > >> I read Shock Doctrine some years ago and wasn't impressed. It >> argued essentially, if I recall, that every bad thing that had >> happened in the economic world could be attributed to the teachings >> of the Chicago School. It seemed more than a little far fetched. > > I think it would be more accurate to say that it argued that there has > been a widespread deliberate strategy of exploiting social disasters, > shocks and confusion to seize control of a society's assets and > finances, to entrain anything that might operate in the public > interest for private gain. And that evangelists for the Chicago > School have been the salient troops in promulgating and implementing > this strategy again and again. > > The underlying concept is nothing new. Someone who would otherwise be > a more or less law-abiding citizen may loot the neighborhood liquor > store once it's been trashed in a riot or a disaster; others less > law-abiding may try to start a riot or a forest fire just so they can > get in on the subsequent looting. What may seem new (because it's one > of those not to be talked about things) is that (putatively) highly > responsible, respectable people may do that to whole national economic > and public service infrastructures, even to the point of fomenting a > financial or political collapse in order to make it possible. > > It is not necessary that *all* such people be high-profile > polemicists for the Chicago School. If a number of the more prominent > of these miscreants are Friedman colleagues or acolytes and use CS > dogmata to subvert and co-opt public water supplies, public services, > public education or the public good in general, the Chicago School is, > if you're paying attention to what's on the end of your fork, > justifiably going to take a lot of the blame, the moreso to the extent > that such piratical practices are overt doctrine of the School. > > > FWIW, > - Mike > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] /( )\ > <http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/> http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] > <https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _____ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
