Russian Revolution Centenary: Part Three

Totalitarianism is the ultimate form of dictatorship. A totalitarian State pervades every aspect of its citizens’ lives.

Music

In 1984, a group of Soviet composers was on an official visit to India. Working with them was my first assignment as a Russian interpreter. Nurilla Zakirov, an Uzbek composer from Tashkent, was part of the group. (Open diary 25: 2008) In private conversations with me, he said, “I would have loved to experiment with different types of music, I can’t. If they could ban Shostakovich’s fourth symphony (note: in Stalin’s time: R.), what will they do to me? I must compose music in the Soviet socialist spirit.”

Literature

Not only music, but literature was strictly censored. I had several arguments with my Russian teachers, asking them as to why Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago was banned. It was one of the finest Russian novels I had read, and my teacher, a PhD in Russian literature, was prohibited from reading it. Years later, my Russian wife showed me a photocopy of Animal farm. Her father had taken great risks in obtaining that book in the black market, and until the collapse of the USSR, the family had hidden it inside the house.

Education

Shall we introduce television now or when they introduce colour?

Education in the USSR was excessively patriotic, even the history textbooks. For the Russian students, television was invented by Vladimir Zvorykin (never heard of John Logie Baird). Alexander Popov gifted radio to mankind (not Marconi). Alexander Mozhaisky built the first aeroplane. (Who are Wright brothers?) Alexander Lodygin is the inventor of the light bulb. (Thomas Edison came much later.)

If you think I am talking of ancient times, take the case of my teacher’s granddaughter currently completing Masters in Economics at a Moscow university. We met in December 2016. I asked her what branch of economics she was studying. She looked puzzled. I asked her whether it was the Adam Smith or the Milton Friedman type. She had not heard the name of a single economist I know, nobody from Benham to Samuelson, certainly not Krugman. Despite the USSR failing in Economics, I suspect the same economics continues to be taught in the Russian universities.

These days, we see photo-shopped fake pictures. Soviets had perfected that art in Stalin’s time. Nikolai Yezhov, Commissar for Internal Affairs under Stalin, was not only secretly shot dead in a basement, but disappeared from pictures as well. Many such people became “non-persons”. They disappeared from the Soviet textbooks, as if they had never existed. The heroes in earlier textbooks became the villains in later editions. In the 1930s, history kept changing so often that the Soviet children often studied without any history textbooks.

Soviet education didn’t tolerate non-conforming individuals. Left-handed children were forcefully converted into right-handed. Outside India, I have the largest number of friends in Russia. Not a single one of them is left-handed. Left-handedness was a stigma, a disorder to be treated, disciplined and cured, until 1985, when the health ministry and in the following year the education ministry, officially announced protection of left-handed kids in the USSR. During Gorbachev’s perestroika, the scientists were finally permitted to release the research that showed how harmful the left-to-right conversion was.

Religion

I have written about this extensively in the past. Propagation of religion was banned. Atheism was promoted as part of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. In the 1980s, Soviet followers of religious sects were imprisoned, sent to psychiatric hospitals. Sergei Zuev alias Sucharu Das, a Hare Krishna devotee, whose house I regularly visited to teach Sanskrit and eat vegetarian food, had been sent to a penal colony for 2 ½ years. Other than meditation, he was accused of vegetarianism, a dangerous concept for the Soviet state.

Jeans

In the USSR, blue jeans represented freedom, capitalism and the West. For most part of Soviet history, jeans could be procured only from the black marketers. A Soviet worker needed to part with two months’ salary to get hold of a pair of jeans, which rarely fit him anyway. During the “1957 World festival of youth and students” held in Moscow, the Soviet youth was first exposed to blue jeans worn by the visiting American students.

Traffickers were called the free market sharks, enemies of the State. In 1961, two such smugglers, Rokotov and Faibishenko, were sentenced to death. Their charge sheet included a charge: trafficking in jeans. In the 1980s, some fortunate Soviet tourists could buy jeans in Hungary. But most of them preferred not to wear them at work.

(It is noteworthy that last year, Kim-Jong Un banned jeans and piercings in North Korea).

Pravda

Pravda, translated as “truth” was the official government newspaper. For the communist party members, its subscription was mandatory. Pravda was not allowed to report air crashes. As a result, Aeroflot was the world’s safest airline during the Soviet years. Despite Gorbachev’s glasnost, Pravda didn’t report the Chernobyl accident for four days. By then the rest of the world knew about it.

Elections

Voting was a right of a Soviet citizen, and it was mandatory for him/her to exercise it. Only one party (Communist party) was allowed to take part in the elections. Elections always had a single candidate, and the voter had the choice of voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’. However, in order to vote a ‘no’, you needed to enter a booth, and make a mark with a pen kept in the booth. Only suicidal voters attempted going inside a booth. As a result, most Soviet elections display proud statistics of more than 99% of the eligible voters voting, and more than 99% of them endorsing the single candidate wholeheartedly.

Xerox copies

If you think I am offering examples from Stalin’s or Brezhnev’s time as evidence of the Soviet totalitarianism, you are mistaken. True, it was diluted during Gorbachev’s time, but the all-permeating totalitarian structure remained in place.

Albert Traxler, an Austrian, was my roommate at my Moscow university. His father was a successful businessman trading with the USSR. In 1987, I had gone with Albert to his father’s Moscow office. Albert needed to photocopy some documents. He showed me a ledger. After Xeroxing, one needed to make an entry in that ledger as to how many copies were taken and of which documents. ‘The State auditors visit us to check that’, Albert explained. ‘They don’t want anybody in this country taking photocopies of banned books or undesirable materials.’ Apart from the ledger entries, the auditors would check the level of toner in the printer to ensure it matches with the number of copies made.

I thought I was immune to surprises the Soviet State could spring up, but the photocopy register shocked me.

Exit visa

Soviets had a domestic passport, on which they couldn’t travel abroad. Obtaining a passport to travel internationally was a lengthy, humiliating process (unless your father worked in the politburo). A Russian friend of mine told me how she would stand in a queue outside an office from 04.00 in the morning in freezing cold. At around 08.00 there would be a roll-call (Перекличка) by volunteers. It established your number in the queue. If you didn’t manage to get in that day, that number was lost. Next morning you queued up from scratch once again. Because of the competition, the aspiring passport candidate would wait for weeks, sometimes months.

Getting a passport was not enough. Before you could go abroad, you needed an “exit visa”. This was the permission from Soviet state, without which no foreign government could issue a visa. In most cases, the wait for the exit visa was so long that ordinary citizens missed the deadline. It was the obvious aim of the Soviet state to deny its citizens an opportunity to visit other countries, particularly those in the West.

The ‘exit visa’ rules applied to foreigners as well. In 1987, the same Albert Traxler went to Odessa. He was booked on a ship to take him back to Western Europe from where he would go home to Austria. He had forgotten to take his exit visa from the institute. Despite having the Austrian passport, a ticket on the ferry, and nothing left to do in the USSR, he was sent back from Odessa to Moscow to retrieve the exit visa.

People were discouraged from going abroad, and information that could come from abroad was severely restricted. Soviet state used jammers wherever they could to block BBC and Voice of America. Bringing video cassettes from abroad was illegal.

Police state

The Soviet state had a right to stop any citizen on the streets without reason, and verify his documents. In 1997, when Moscow celebrated its 850^th anniversary, this paranoia reached its peak. I was stopped on the streets every five minutes, by every policeman, who couldn’t distinguish between Chechens and Hindus. It took me a few years after leaving Russia for that instant discomfort at the sight of a policeman to disappear.

During my runs at Patriarshi ponds, policemen twice stopped me to demand my ID. My fluency in Russian saved me.

In 1994, in the south of Moscow, I was handcuffed, frisked, my jacket torn to check if I had hidden drugs inside. The police then let me go without a word of apology.

At least on three occasions, the custom officer at the airport didn’t let me go to catch my flight until I gave him gifts (which he saw in my bag on the x-ray monitor).

Racial profiling was common. In the UK, police are prohibited from using racial descriptions (they can say a tall man, but not a black man). In the USSR, racial profiling was normal. Even today, respectable newspapers occasionally use the word negr.

Movement inside the country was severely restricted. Soviets going outside their own city had to register after three days. They couldn’t become a member of a library, couldn’t work or live officially outside the place mentioned in their passport. For foreigners, visiting cities not mentioned on the visa was a crime.

An American friend of mine, Jennifer, called her mother from the Moscow post office. In 1986, international calls were put through an operator. Jennifer could hear her mother very well, her mother could hear Jennifer very well, but the operator kept telling Jennifer: “please speak louder, I can’t hear you properly.”

What is particularly mind-boggling is that the Soviet State managed to reach sophistication in surveillance and policing of its own citizens at a time when there was no internet, no mobiles, and for many years no computers. I shudder to imagine what USSR would have done if they had access to all those things.

Surveillance in modern world

Modern technology and the bogey of terrorism have encouraged many countries including the USA and the UK to become surveillance states. They are not yet police states in the sense that police can’t arbitrarily stop citizens and demand documents.

Until a few years ago, I was very proud of India, a country whose citizens in principle could live their entire lives without identity documents. Unfortunately, that time is over. India has now introduced a biometric Aadhar card, an ID for each citizen to create the world’s biggest biometric database. It is mandatory in practice though not by law. Bank accounts and mobile phones will be deactivated unless connected to the Aadhar card. (Currently challenged in India’s Supreme Court).

This is a dangerous worldwide trend. The power of the State over an individual is enhancing exponentially even in democratic nations. A powerful surveillance State can first become a police State. A police and surveillance State can become a totalitarian State. Next week, I will discuss what is needed to avoid or postpone this.  

Soviet Communism experiment: Lesson no.3: A totalitarian State can never become part of a civilised world. It is normally a fearful, rude, unhappy, paranoid State that ill-treats its own citizens. (Currently North Korea, Cuba, some Islamic and African states). If you feel your country is becoming a police or surveillance State, protest and resist as much as you can. If your country becomes totalitarian (regulating music, literature, food, clothes, education), run away from it as quickly as you can. Before your State stops you from leaving it.  

Ravi  

Russian Revolution Centenary: Part Two

I landed in Moscow for the first time on Sun. 7 September 1986. That was the first time in my life when I could not find any food to buy. The university canteens were shut, and not a single cafe or shop was open in the vicinity. Fortunately, my mother, worried about her son going to this strange new land, had forced me to carry some Indian food within my 20 kg weight limit. Even with its wartime-like rationing, I exhausted all of it in a week. On 14 September, it was Sunday again, and I was keen not to starve. My French flatmate Marc, who knew Moscow better, suggested we both go to the town’s centre and eat at the Prague restaurant.

“Shouldn’t be expensive”, he said looking at my anxious face. “We should go early, because it may take some time for us to enter it.”

I think we reached the famous restaurant by around 11.00. The street was full of people, all part of a disciplined serpentine queue. In fact, restaurant Prague had a large empty courtyard in front so that hundreds of people could wait in peace. Marc and I knew each other for about six days. Marc’s ancestors were from Russia. So he was more patient. We talked a lot. Once you invest 2-3 hours standing in a queue, you can’t leave it. As a matter of experience, I can confirm you can’t leave it until you get the dividend (in this case, food). We finally got in at around 6 pm, after waiting on the road for nearly seven hours. I ordered an egg omelette and bread from the rude, screaming waiter. (On a Bombay street, I could get the same in three minutes). Marc was right. Despite being a centrally located restaurant, restaurant Prague was quite cheap.

*****

From then on, queues became a part of my daily life for several years. I comforted myself by saying I was a foreigner who could leave Russia any time. After marrying a Russian girl, that argument sounded weak.

You queued for milk and bread in the mornings. Old babushkas, fattened by eating only bread and potatoes during the war years, literally wrestled to enter the shop or reach the counter. Places like hairdressers had queues that you couldn’t see. On entering, you asked “who is the last one?” The “last one” nodded. You then claimed your place after him. He was then free to leave the salon and queue up in other places. It was both an art and a science to judge the time needed in each queue and reappear before your turn came.

Products without queues were not worth buying. If there was no queue for it, it must be bad, Soviets knew.

The first McDonalds in Russia, the world’s biggest at that time, opened in Moscow in January 1990. For the first few years, you needed to wait for 7-8 hours before you could enter this fast food place. The Big Mac cost merely 5 kopecks.  

*****

Queues were not the only amusement in our daily lives. Before going to Moscow, I always used Colgate toothpaste. Moscow made me change my toothpaste. Thanks to my living in communist times, I still use two different toothpastes, one in the morning, another in the night. In the USSR, you asked for toothpaste and bought whichever was available. If the shop didn’t ration the stocks, and if the boorish woman at the counter allowed, you picked up a dozen toothpastes.

Not only toothpastes, your clothes, shoes, watches, perfumes, shampoos, buying everything was a matter of chance. Jackets and overcoats vied with each other in their dull heavy-ness. My bear-like soviet overcoat was so ugly; I preferred to use a second-hand jacket given by my Austrian flatmate. (Soviet quality: The Soviet microprocessors were the largest in the world, the watches the fastest and Zenit cameras the heaviest.)

Each purchase was a feat – a product of intelligence, luck and lots of burnt calories in a queue. In an earlier diary, I have told the story of a Russian federal minister whom I helped buy lenses and a frame separately in an Indian town. At the Soviet optician, you opted for your dioptric number with whatever frame, or for an available frame with whatever number.

*****

In 1986, officially, 100 US dollars fetched you 60 roubles. However, in the black market, they fetched 600 roubles, ten times more. Aeroflot tickets were not available for six months. But if you knew the right people, and inserted a few right notes inside your passport, you could procure a ticket for next week. If your mother was dying of cancer, the treatment was free, but the next appointment was available after three years. However, parting with your annual salary would allow her to get treated in her lifetime.

*****

How did all that change? How did the queues vanish from Moscow?

The Soviet Union’s economy was planned. All wages and prices were artificially repressed. The Gosplan (central planning committee) decided what to produce, how much and at what price. Factories were given production targets, not sales targets. Because everything produced was bound to be sold (thanks to the wisdom of the planning committee).

Gosplan, in their five-year plans, followed a method called “material balances”. This meant planning both supply and demand of raw materials and finished products in units, not costs or prices. For example, if a seven-story shoe shop covered an area with 50,000 people, Gosplan would order 100,000 pairs of shoes for that area, prices didn’t matter. When the pairs hit the shoe mall, the 50,000 people queued up. A few lucky ones got the right size, less lucky ones managed with shoes a little too tight or loose, and others continued to use their old shoes. Consumers complained of shortages. Soviet State produced the planning figures to show how people were lying.

Since the State owned everything including the people’s labour, the prices for goods and services could be anything the State wished. A Soviet economist once said they used the prices from the capitalist countries to get an idea of how to price equivalent goods. When he was asked what would happen if the whole world became communist (as originally intended), he answered: “I’m afraid we’ll need to keep at least one country capitalist, so the rest of the world could use its prices as benchmark.”

*****

Stalin, a believer in super-specialisation had a grand plan. He wanted the USSR to produce only steel, lots and lots of steel, enough for the needs of the entire world. (Stalin got his name from Stal=steel in Russian). Later, that steel would be bartered against all consumer products the Soviet people needed. Such fantastic ideas are the product of the command economy. Unfortunately, other nations were not made part of Stalin’s daydream. USSR produced steel in excess that nobody wanted. Soviet people, however sturdy, couldn’t eat steel for lunch. When the USSR collapsed, less than 60% of the country’s GDP came from consumer goods, and negligible from services. It had 45,000 nuclear weapons, an all-time world record, and people queuing for bread and milk.

*****

An illiterate lady haggling at the bazaar, or a literate man searching the internet for the cheapest air tickets know what the market economy means.

In a market economy, sellers can keep raising the price until queues vanish. If a product is not moving, prices can be dropped until consumers flock back. If the State fixes the maximum price for bananas at 5 cents per dozen, bananas will immediately be in huge shortage. If the government taxes tobacco or alcohol unreasonably high, smuggling of those products will begin immediately. Market economy is a beautiful levelling mechanism that juggles between demand and supply to find the right price point.

Market economy is also about consumer focus and competition. 

   

Consumer orientation

Years ago, my school friend Hemant, a nuclear physicist, worked in the Kolar Gold Fields. Kolar is a South Indian town where gold was mined. Hemant was posted there for three years. He regularly visited a tiny tobacconist stall to buy ‘Honeydew’, the brand he smoked. When the assignment was over, and it was time to return to Bombay, he casually mentioned his impending departure to the tobacconist.

“Oh,” the tobacconist said, “in that case I’ll stop buying Honeydew from tomorrow.”

“Why?” Hemant asked, surprised.

“You’re the only one in this town who smokes Honeydew. For the past three years, I was buying it only for you.”

*****

Market economy and its constituents, like this tobacconist, are focused on serving and satisfying the consumer. In 2001, as a single man I often dined at a Mexican place close to my house in Warsaw. As soon as I sat at the table, the waiter would place a ‘double grapefruit juice no ice’ on my table without my asking for it. In the Soviet Union, I never had any such experience.

Competition and super-specialisation

 Since the Soviet state owned everything, there was no competition. State planners believed in super specialisation and created giant monopolies. I remember around 1992 or 1993, the ice cream packaging factory broke down. Ice cream was produced in another factory. For the next few months, in Moscow, we went to buy ice cream with steel containers from our own houses, much as one would buy milk in our childhood.

India’s mistake

China remains a communist country. During the cold war India was under the Soviet influence. Both avoided a USSR-type collapse, because they partially allowed market economy and free enterprise.

India made the mistake of offering subsidies on food, oil and gas, electricity, transport, fertilizers and many others. Paradoxically, a poor country can’t afford to become a welfare state. India’s interfering with the market economy often resulted in mass-scale corruption, theft and black market. Many such subsidies continue, keeping the cost of living down.

Had India not followed the Soviet route of 5-year State plans and heavy subsidies, India’s population would have been less than half of what it is. High cost of living is a great contraceptive. Fortunately, 25 years after the USSR collapsed, India has finally woken up to the fact that State planning doesn’t work. The twelfth 5-year plan ended in March this year turned out to be the last one. Indian Gosplan is finally over, thank goodness. Let the markets decide.

Education and medical: Should they be free?

Since I am such a strong proponent of market economy and free market (no govt interference), I must discuss free education and free medical, the two things Soviets were proud of (until they realised some western capitalist countries also offered both).

Education was free in the USSR. Medical services were free on paper, but in practice you needed to give the doctor anything from a vodka bottle to real cash. The quality of medical services was poor. (Read how a Moscow hospital treated me for antritis in my open diary week 15: 2009).

Education at all levels is free in Germany. My brother, an Indian citizen, studied at a German university for eight years and paid zero tuition fees. (Everything else was expensive, though). The education subsidy in Germany is not as bad as the food or fuel subsidy for two reasons.

a.      Education can’t be hoarded like potatoes or diesel. Education is rarely an attractive or addictive product. Students normally go to schools or colleges with the same degree of enthusiasm as a clerk working for the State accounts department.

b.      Since education is free throughout Germany, a certain quality can be maintained. In countries where both free and paid schools exist, the quality in the free schools starts falling.

*****

Free medical service is another debatable topic that can’t be covered in this short article. Health insurance was meant to be a vehicle, but USA has shown how it can become a scam. In the UK, NHS is severely under pressure. Certainly, wherever medical services and products are expensive, and uninsured, people pay more attention to their health.

*****

If one, and only one, factor were to be chosen for the failure of the Soviet Union, I would say it was the State planning system replacing the market economy.

Soviet Communism experiment: Lesson no.2: Market economy functions, State planning doesn’t. State is never as consumer focused as the market forces. Subsidies or repression of prices give rise to corruption, black markets, rationing, queues and inferior service.

Ravi 

Russian Revolution Centenary: Part One

I got a call from Tanya, an employee of the Russian consulate in Bombay, this morning.

“We’re happy to invite you next Saturday, the 4^th of November, for lunch and a concert.”

“Thank you.” I said. “I was wondering when the centenary celebrations would be announced.”

“Centenary?” Tanya sounded puzzled. “We are celebrating the Day of People’s Unity.”

“The Day of People’s Unity?” Despite my thirty-five years’ association with Russia, I could not recall any such day. Which Russian people were in need of uniting and why? When I lived in Moscow, every year we celebrated the 7^th of November, the day of the Great October Socialist Revolution. The atmosphere was festive, Russian government used special planes to forcefully send clouds away. As a result, on 7^th November, it never rained or snowed on the red square. Brezhnev and later Gorbachev stood on the balcony of Lenin’s tomb with uniformed commanders and watched the red square parade displaying the Soviet military might. Hundreds of thousands of Russians who pretended to work every day got a welcome one-day relief. 

“You don’t know the Day of People’s Unity?” Tanya asked. “President Putin has established that holiday a few years ago.”

“And the October revolution day? The 7^th November?”

This year is the 100^th anniversary of the October revolution. Since Russia is synonymous with grandness, I expected celebrations the kind of which mankind has never seen.

“No, the October revolution day is gone. We don’t celebrate it at all. For many years now. In fact, the Day of People’s Unity replaced it.”

Since Tanya was on the consulate’s phone line, I decided not to probe any further. Who would have thought the 100^th anniversary of the great Russian revolution would be ignored and forgotten? Like the clouds on top of the red square, the centenary has been swept away into oblivion. 

*****

The 1917 revolution appeared to be jinxed from the start. In 1918, Russia adopted the Gregorian instead of Julian calendar. Consequently, it turned out that the October revolution had, in fact, happened in November. (Equally confusing for the foreigners is the “Old New Year” celebrated by Russians on 14 January.) 

I can write the story of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the execution of his entire family. Or about the Bloody Sunday in January 1905 when the imperial guards ruthlessly killed unarmed, peaceful protesters. Bloody Sunday could have been the starting point of the revolution that took place twelve years later. It would be interesting to write the life story of the mad monk, Grigori Rasputin, a peasant whose influence on the Tsar’s wife made him a threat to the empire. His murder still remains a mystery after 100 years. I could probably write an essay explaining the difference between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the Red army and the White army. But I don’t plan to write any of it now. In the coming weeks, I prefer to analyze why the impact of the revolution didn’t last even for 100 years, why communism failed, why the Soviet Union collapsed, and what lessons we can learn from that failure.

In doing so, I will offer my personal perspective, based on my years of stay in Russia. The USA and Europe have many outstanding experts on Russia and communism. However, most of them have never lived in Russia. Their analysis is usually tainted with their own agendas. The versatile historian and activist Noam Chomsky calls the Russian revolution a “coup”, and considers that Lenin and Stalin had killed socialism in the initial years itself. I am a Chomsky fan, but I think he is wrong (a) because his diehard left-wing thinking blinds him at times and (b) he has never lived in the Soviet Union.   

The surviving communists in the world still maintain communism to be the only political system capable of saving the mankind. They argue that in the USSR, communism died because it wasn’t rightly implemented. That is also untrue. Soviet Union tried to enforce the Marxist philosophy in many ways.

*****

The world, as a matter of fact, should be grateful to the October revolution. That revolution gave birth to the world’s first Communist State. The massive experiment used the Soviet people as guinea pigs. Soviet Union bore the burden, it became the biggest lab to test communism, and millions of its citizens suffered as a result for over seventy years. Russia and the other fourteen sovereign off-shoots of the former USSR are still paying the price for their communist past. By running that experiment, and failing miserably in it, the USSR saved many other nations from failing in the future.

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world had 32 communist countries. Today, only five: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea. (Would you like to settle in any of them?)

The USSR-USA cold war was projected as the war between communism and capitalism, authoritarian system and democracy, planned economy and markets. But USSR and USA were not equivalent samples. Their history, geography, economies and people were not comparable. In a scientific experiment, you take two similar rats (scientific term: probabilistically equivalent), one becomes the experimental sample and the other a control sample. Since USSR and USA were vastly different, the failure of communism is not proven by the collapse of Soviet Union.

The failure was, curiously enough, proven in two other nations where historical accidents had created two pairs of identical rats.

After the Second World War, Germany and Korea were both split into two nations each, one rat given the dose of communism and the other rat vaccinated with capitalism. East Germany collapsed, its currency and political system vanished, and it had to be absorbed by West Germany. This was one scientific proof of the failure of communism.

The experiment, unfortunately, still continues in North Korea. South Korea is an Asian Tiger, its economy putting it among the world’s elite, its brands Samsung, LG or Hyundai part of our households. North Korea, a military regime, subservient to a whimsical dynasty, is poor beyond imagination. Availability of electricity and water is sporadic. Torture, public executions, slave labour, forced abortions and infanticides in prison are common. A comparable child in North Korea weighs 20 pounds less and is 8 inches shorter than its Southern counterpart. If this is not the proof of failure of communism, I don’t know what is.

Private vs public ownership

I don’t know if you have ever felt what I feel when I look at infants. They look so terribly helpless that I wonder how all of us survived our infancy and childhood. The answer lies in private ownership. The procreating parents take enormous care of their child; feeding, cleaning, teaching and caring and worrying about it till the time the child becomes independent.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, children are supposed to be given at birth to the State for the State to raise them. I am glad that book remains a fiction. It is impossible that the State, the faceless State, can raise children with the same degree of care and love as the parents. The same is true of private property versus government property.

In the Soviet Union, all means of production had to be owned by the government. Every working Soviet citizen was a government employee. Even writers and painters were expected to be employed by the Writers’ guild and Painters’ guild which were government organisations. A music composer was an employee of the Union of Composers.

At the time of the revolution, the Russian empire was primarily agricultural. Kulaks privately owned large agricultural farms. Stalin decided to get rid of them – a process termed dekulakisation. Many were arrested, deported and executed. This was followed by the process of “Collectivisation”. Collective farms (Kolkhoz) and state-owned farms (Sovkhoz) were both wonderfully fantasy concepts. Farmers began killing their own cattle. Ukraine, known as the bread basket of the world became an importer of wheat. In the man-made famine of 1932-33, some 10 million people died of starvation (holodomor).  This is now considered as genocide by Ukraine and some other nations.

The farmers had no incentive to put in their best efforts when their farms, their cattle, their property was taken over by the government. That killed Soviet agriculture.

Making a large pool

What is a government? It is the summation of the people who are part of the geography which that government controls. Since government is a legal fiction (in the sense we can’t see or touch it), what is owned by the government is actually controlled by people who run the government. Governments can own property (open spaces, parks, lands, bridges), cash (taxes collected from the citizens), natural resources (oil, diamonds), banks, airlines, hospitals and much else. All that is owned by the government is liable to be looted by those who run the government. That is the reason politicians of all kinds, parties and countries are usually rich far beyond their capabilities.

In the USSR, buying a private car was not easy. Those who could afford to book one, needed to wait for 6-8 years for delivery. Leonid Brezhnev, though, owned a large fleet that included everything from Chevrolet Bel Air, Opel, Chrysler 300 up to Maserati Quattroporte, two Rolls-Royce Silver Shadows and a Lincoln Continental. 

Public versus private

This public versus private debate is not restricted to the governments.

I see many Indian men spitting on the roads. They do it passionately and shamelessly. I don’t think they spit on the floor inside their house (I hope not).

We, the civilised non-spitting people, may change our order in the restaurants depending on who is paying for it. If a large corporation, your employer, is paying for it; you may be tempted to eat more or at least order the most expensive dishes. When you do that, whose money are you spending? The shareholders’. They would get less dividend as a result of your eating expensive dishes.

Looting can happen in private corporations just like it happens in the governments. Government collects taxes from a large number of people. A giant multinational can raise huge amounts of money by issuing shares to the public. The trick is to collect money from a large number. Whoever controls that money can then begin to loot part of it for personal profit. This is how some bankers in the USA manage to earn 100 million dollars a year as their pay package. Then why don’t those banks collapse the way the Soviet Union did? Because of the checks and balances in the system. Private companies and democratic nations have regulations and checks and balances. If not enforced, the banks paying hundreds of millions of dollars to their top directors will go bust as well.

That was the difference between a private company and the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union, everything belonged to the government, and due to the dictatorship of the communist party, almost no checks and balances existed. At the lower level, ordinary workers had little incentive to work. No farmer is really interested in cultivating land that doesn’t belong to him. At the highest levels, the politburo and the top communist party members were busy plundering the country’s natural resources. Since all power was concentrated in their hands, they were not answerable to anybody.

Soviet Communism experiment: Lesson no. 1: The private owners can take better care of their property whether it is children, farms or businesses. Government, a faceless entity, forcefully owns the country’s resources and collects money from its citizens. That opens the doors for govt representatives to raid the country’s treasury. In the absence of regulations, checks and balances, the same can happen in large public companies.

(Next lesson next week)

Ravi 

An Analysis of the Las Vegas Shooting

On the night of 1 October, a music concert in Las Vegas was interrupted by the discordant sounds of gunshots and screaming. Ten minutes of non-stop bullets fired from the 32^nd floor of a neighbouring hotel left 58 people dead and 546 injured. The mass murderer was identified as one Stephen Paddock. As is typical of spree shooters, the last person Paddock killed was himself, much before the police could approach his hotel room. Three weeks later, the American police, investigators, media and general public are still frantically searching for a motive. Why did Paddock cause what turned out to be the deadliest massacre in American history by a single individual?

This article offers my theory about the motive of this ‘lone wolf’.

Can a white man be called a terrorist?

It would have been much simpler if Paddock had Arabic features or if his name was Mohammed Paddock. The carnage could then be legally and technically called an act of terrorism; the USA could then officially send drones to some Arab geography and bomb a few hundred civilians in retaliation for this imported terror. Unfortunately, Stephen Paddock was white, very American, without any links whatsoever to politics or religion. Though ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, in this case it was an obvious lie. Most ISIS recruits are in their 20s and 3os. Paddock was 64 years old.

A completely different shooter  

Other than his pensionable age, Paddock’s complete absence from social media has left analysts dumbfounded. Paddock didn’t leave a suicide note, emails, video messages, nothing. His not having a Facebook or Twitter account could be partly explained by his age, but he could have still left an explanatory letter or clues.

Paddock had no criminal record in any State or federal data base, except a single minor traffic violation years ago.

He was rich, not in any financial difficulties. Weeks before the shooting, he had sent his girlfriend to her native land-Philippines- and then transferred 100,000 dollars in her name, an act she had interpreted as the break-up of the relationship. It indeed was his parting gift to her, but not in a way she thought.

Ben Paddock, the biological father of Stephen Paddock, was a bank robber and con man. For eight years, he was on the FBI’s ten most wanted fugitives’ list. However, he had disappeared when Stephen was seven. Ben’s wife had told the four sons their father was dead. Ben Paddock took no further part in the kids’ upbringing. It’s a moot point whether criminal genes exist and are hereditary. 

Mass murderers are supposed to be depressed or angry or mentally unstable. The investigators conducted detailed autopsy tests on Paddock’s brain to find abnormalities. There were none. Paddock possessed a normal, healthy brain.

In fact, his preparation for the shooting was methodical and systematic.  23 rifles and a handgun were found in his hotel room. Over a period of six days, he had secretly brought them in ten large suitcases. Twelve rifles were fitted with bump fire stocks, a device that converts semi-automatic into automatic weapons. The same room had tripods for the rifles to rest on, high-tech telescopic sights, a large quantity of ammunition. The entire arsenal was very expensive, top of the range. Paddock had placed baby cameras inside and outside his room for him to monitor all movement in the hotel corridors. His car, parked in the hotel basement, was full of stocks of Ammonium Nitrate (used in bombs), 1600 rounds of ammunition, and 23 kg of Tannerite (another explosive). At his home in Mesquite, police located 19 more firearms, explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition. All guns, even the semi-automatic rifles, were bought legally. Nevada gun laws permit the buying and carrying of rifles and shotguns without permits.

The shooting was not impulsive in any way. Paddock had, over the years, systematically built up his gun museum. Six days before the massacre, when he checked in at hotel Mandalay Bay, he knew exactly what he planned to do on the day of the concert. A few months before, he had checked in at various hotels next to music festivals, presumably for reconnaissance.

A successful and rich man

To speculate on his motive, one needs to look at Stephen Paddock’s career. He was an MBA from the California State University. He worked for the Internal Revenue Service as an accountant and auditor for a few years. Disappointed with the kind of money a salaried person makes, he entered the real-estate business. Very successful at that, he was worth more than $2 million by the year 2000. His tax records show he made $6 million profits from selling some of his property in 2015.

His main career for the last 25 years, though, was gambling. He slept during the day, and gambled through the night. Paddock’s speciality was the game of video poker. This is different from the crowded tables in glamorous casinos we see in the James Bond movies. For hours, and for years, Paddock played alone in front of a slot machine. As an accountant, he had developed algorithms, and was a successful gambler. His bets ranged from $10000 to $50000. He was so loyal; most casinos offered him free hotel rooms as a reward for his loyalty. The room he had booked at hotel Mandalay Bay for a week was part of the free promotion.

He lived in various houses, but didn’t socialise with any of his neighbours. In fact, he built barricades to make sure the neighbours couldn’t see anything in his house. Since he slept during the day, his rooms were covered with thick curtains to keep the sun away. Paddock had two divorces, and a current girlfriend.

Boredom and a new challenge

Two things emerge on reading Paddock’s life history. (a) He was not social, almost a misanthrope. (b) He loved gambling and casino games. The two factors are critical when speculating Paddock’s motive.

I think Paddock was bored. Anyone looking at a five-card slot machine for twenty-five years would be. He was looking for a new grand game with much higher stakes. A game worthy of his talents. A challenge that would take him out of the dark casino room, and allow him to do something spectacular out there in the real world. He found such a game – the hunting of humans, a 21^st century sport.

Hunting of humans

The big-game hunting of humans is played on two levels-State and individual.

On the State level, when NATO soldiers use their most sophisticated weaponry in Iraq or Syria, they can fearlessly hunt human beings, most of them civilians. The soldiers are given hunting licences, and they are rewarded for the number of corpses they can produce. Sometimes tragedy strikes and the hunter himself gets killed. His family becomes the gold star family. His widow may get a personal phone call from the president of the USA.

On the individual level, mass murderers try to maximise the number of prey. I call it the “Corpse Ratio”. (Read my open diary Week 43/ 2006: the Ethics of NuclearBombing.)

11 September 2001 set the benchmark for all aspiring mass murderers. Each of the plane hijackers managed to kill 150 people. That corpse ratio statistic, 1:150, remains a record till date.

Last year, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, 31, drove a truck into the crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France. He killed 86 people.

The previous American record was held by Omar Mateen, 29, who single-handedly killed 49 people last year in a nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

Stephen Paddock managed to beat the American record in the individual hunting competition, but he fell short of the 1:150 all time record set by the 9/11 terrorists.

As an accountant, auditor and gambler, Paddock was probably aware of these records. It is possible he died happily thinking (wrongly) he had killed far more people than he actually did.

Getting away with murder

Just like the American soldiers killing human beings in Iraq and Syria, the mass murderers usually escape any statutory punishment. They either kill themselves or are killed by the police (known as Suicide by Cop).

Social researchers have found that many normal people would be inclined to commit crimes, if there was no punishment. In a 2014 study, one third of male students at a US university said they would rape a woman if they could get away with it.

It is plausible Stephen Paddock wished to play the spectacular game of man-hunting, with no fear of jail. It’s much easier for a 64-year man to decide to end his life, than for a 29-year old, I presume. Paddock got bored at 64, but he could have got bored at 84. With his expensive rifles, he could have still managed to take part in the mass murder sport.

The lesson  

Just as in the private sector, 9/11 established a record of 1:150; on the State level, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing had produced the best corpse ratios in the history of warfare.  If you ignore the small number of unfortunate Americans stationed there, the two bombs killed more than 200,000 enemy bodies without losing a single of their own.

As the weapons become more sophisticated and plentiful, the State actors would also aspire to improve the corpse ratio in this game of human hunting.

The current US president is 71 years old. The world’s deadliest weapons are at his fingertips. Using them is his prerogative; no punishment is prescribed for it. If he senses his term coming to an end by law or prematurely, he may be tempted to break the Hiroshima-Nagasaki record.

Just as Paddock wished to end his career and life in a spectacular fashion, so can the president of the United States of America. North Korea has 25 million people. “Totally destroying North Korea” would make the world forget Hiroshima.

Evil old men with sophisticated weapons, fearing no punishment, participating in the 21^st century human hunting sport. That, for me, is the big lesson of the Las Vegas shooting.

Ravi