Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottlocklin | Hacker News Reader

The US didn't loot the former Soviet Union; Harvard and their chosen oligarchs did. Harvard basically admitted they did this in a lawsuit[1]. It's one of the worst things done in the late 20th century; was basically genocide for a quick buck.

The US media, being part of the sinister Harvard axis, of course, didn't report it, but people in Russia (the Exile guys, Russians) certainly know about it, which is why they elected a brute like Putin to keep Harvard economists and their oligarch orcs from destroying the place further. You can find stuff; even Schleifer's wiki page alludes to it. Unvetted example: http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Pseudoscience/harvard_m...

Two books every American should read: 1) Godfather of the Kremlin (the author of this book was assassinated) 2) Casino Moscow

[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20160827112235/http://www.instit...

View on HN

It seems like we are both being downvoted for stating historical facts. Sad state of affairs here at HN and honestly a bit jingoistic to think US intervention in Russia was somehow “enlightened”.

Probably because these are not "historical facts". I mean, genocide? Harvard University tried to exterminate the Russian people? Who knew a bunch of academics had that kind of power...

Of course, this also neatly ignores the responsibility of Russian politicians for their own country, which was hardly under foreign occupation at the time.

I think genocide is a stretch/figure of speech.

Still Russia lost populating during the period which was unprecedented outside of famines - https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/09/02/dying-russians/

You’re right about Russian politicians. My only idea is why the hell did we help them if we knew they were dirty as hell? That’s the question really.

The average male lifespan in Russia in the 90s was 58.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC259165/

The economic policies Harvard (and to be fair, the Clinton administration, whose fixers put Yeltzin in power in 96 -talk of interfering in elections: overt, boasted about even, and gone down the memory hole) inflicted on Russia in the 90s literally killed millions of Russians.

So, yes, "basically genocide" is an appropriate choice of words.

That article starts with "Under supervision of Harvard mafia Russian economy has all but collapsed" - sorry, whatever bad things Harvard people did, I think the Russian economy was already collapsed or collapsing. That is allegedly why they opened up to the West.

Any more balanced sources?

Edit: since rate limiting prevents me from further replies, in response to the comment below: the quote specifically mentions the "Russian economy", not just looting of assets owned by the state.

It does not matter whether the Russian economy was booming or in deep trouble - the issue that is being discussed is the looting of assets owned by the state.

Russian/Soviet economy was definitly not collapsing or at least nowhere near a quickly. Afaik quality of life and income collapsed during the 90s far faster than it ever had during the Soviet Union.

What about the 3 Million Ukranians starving to death when the communists implemented their plans? https://allthatsinteresting.com/holodomor-ukranian-famine

That sounds like a pretty harsh reduction of quality of life to me.

And how are the Russians doing today? Better or worse than during the Soviet Union?

Are we getting an accurate picture of Soviet Union days, or do we only get to see the shiny side, with poor people brushed under the carpet, sent to Siberia or dead?

That was decades before the 1990s? Here’s a good article about the 1990s - https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/09/02/dying-russians/

Your claim was "Afaik quality of life and income collapsed during the 90s far faster than it ever had during the Soviet Union." - so you are making a claim about the time before the 1990ies, which I refuted with the example of Ukrania.

Edit: as for the article, it doesn't seem to support the claim that the (allegedly US inspired) "shock therapy" in the 90ies was the cause for all the hardship or the deaths. It mentions economic problems in the 80ies and the "shock therapy" preventing a famine in the 90ies.

Nevertheless, I find it all very interesting. But a lot of the articles that have been mentioned in the comments sound a bit like apologist of socialism. A lot of finger pointing and blaming seems to be going on, and I don't necessarily find it all immediately trustworthy. Even to this day, many people are still around who believe Socialism was better. Any article making such claims should provide a lot of data to support it. Mere claims of "person x sad that and then everything went downhill" are not sufficient.

I think you are being carried away by things I didn’t say.

I don’t think communism under the USSR was better than any law abiding capitalist society. In fact it was objectively worst. But what happened in Russia in the 90s was brutal, reducing lifespans of the average Russian and bringing back poverty that I don’t believe was at all common in the 1980s USSR. It was unfettered Capitalism with no regard for the rule of law, and privatisation was placed above everything including legal and political precepts. The result was a dystopian nightmare that led to Russians accepting autocracy under Putin as a viable alternative. And it was all done under the aegis of American Economist who were sent over to “help”.

It may be as you said, it just isn't reflected in the article you linked to. That's all I said.

I would also be careful because there seems to be a lot of finger pointing and many people being eager to blame other people to distract from their own failings. I wouldn't believe anything that is written about it at face value.

Also you changed the goal post, now you compare to the 1980s, not all the time of the Soviet union. That's veering into "no true Scottsman" territory.

I'm sure there were many people in the 80ies who lived a dystopian nightmare in Russia, too. We just don't hear about them, because they were locked away and eventually died.

>I think the Russian economy was already collapsed or collapsing. That is allegedly why they opened up to the West.

It wasn't doing well but it wasn't close to collapse. Russia opened up (economically and politically) because that's what Gorbachev wanted.

He could easily not have done it and the USSR would likely still be around.

It took a deep dive after the USSR split.

Venezuela is also still around, even though the people are starving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com