Sunday, May 05, 2019

SMALL ALBERTA OIL COMPANIES MAY CLOSE IN LARGE NUMBERS

KENNEY AND UCP ARE NOW IN CHARGE SO HOW IS THAT GOING 


Change Alberta
Fair Albertans! It appears that many Alberta companies did not receive the UCP e-mail: she-devil Rachel Notley, who was elected eight months after world oil prices began a steep fall, used her black magic to climb into a time warp to reduce those prices. Then she and her New Diabolical Party caused investors all over the world to have heart attacks by investing in schools and health care and even daycares for commoners when every good soul knows that they should have been abandoing such unworthy projects for deep corporate cuts for billionaires.
Now God's sidekick (well, Stephen Harper's sidekick, which is just as good, no?) has been elected by the good people of Alberta to right the wrongs created by the she-devil and her alleged accomplice, the scion of the evil leader of Mordor, P.E. Trudeau. Sir Jason KKKenney, warding off all those who would imprison him for a few little nasty tricks against that chump of a Brian Jean, has told the world that he will build pipelines to everywhere and let oil companies pay less in corporate tax than the province will spend building infrastructure for them and providing an educated and healthy labour force for them. (Don't be glum about such cuts, you silly bleeding-heart leftists. Don't you know that the rich will trickle wealth down to you and you can join Americans in patronizing private health and education services, which may be a trifle expensive but make you feel so much more like free men and women than those socialist schools and hospitals that don't even own credit card machines).
And an oil company has shut down and a dozen plan to follow???? Who's writing that script? It must be the she-devil herself or maybe the international socialist conspiracy???? Everyone knows that when we kneel to the super-wealthy that via the invisible hand of the market, they will enrich us all.

SMALL ALBERTA OIL COMPANIES MAY CLOSE IN LARGE NUMBERS

Another oil and gas company fails in Alberta — and more than a dozen others are teetering 

'It's going to get a lot worse,' landowner advocate says about the number of companies on the brink


A sign is located near a Trident Exploration natural gas well near the community of Didsbury, Alta. Trident blamed low commodity prices and a lack of export pipeline capacity, among other reasons, for shutting down this week. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)
Alberta's persistently low oil and gas prices have claimed another victim as Calgary-based Trident Exploration ceased operations this week. 
Several other companies could suffer the same fate.
Trident's board of directors resigned, 94 people are without work and a large number of oil and gas assets now have no owner. The company, predominantly focused on natural gas, had approximately 3,650 wells, 240 facilities and 500 pipelines, according to the Albey Regulator
While there is no official list of how many firms have declared bankruptcy since the oil price crash in late 2014, many companies declared bankruptcy or entered creditor protection. In the last year alone, at least a dozen companies have become insolvent, according to Insolvency Insider, an industry newsletter. 
Plenty of companies are in rough shape, said Daryl Bennett who works with small energy companies through his positions with the Action Surface Rights Association and Alberta Surface Rights Federation.
"It's going to get a lot worse," he said during a phone interview from his home in Taber, in southern Alberta. "There are close to 31 companies right now that are close to going insolvent."  
Since the beginning of January, heavy oil in the province has sold for more than $40 US per barrel and even climbed above $50 US this month. Still, this week, the Petroleum Services Association of Canada lowered its 2019 drilling forecast for the second time.
It now anticipates 5,300 oil and gas wells will be drilled in Canada, down from a revised estimate of 5,600 wells in January and a 20 per cent drop from its original 6,600 forecast in November 2018. 

'They don't have the money'

Meanwhile, natural gas prices have remained low for several years and Bennett said those companies are the ones hurting the most.
"[For] a lot of them, it's a cashflow problem. They don't have the money," he said.
Trident blamed low commodity prices and a lack of export pipeline capacity, among other reasons for shutting down.
The Alberta Energy Regulator said it will now examine whether any of the company's operations are a risk to the public and the environment. It will also ensure "Trident's infrastructure is transferred to responsible operators, safely decommissioned, or, as a last resort, transferred to the Orphan Well Association."
As more companies go bankrupt, the Orphan Well Association has seen its inventory of wells, pipelines and other facilities rise sharply in recent years. The association is funded by industry, and fees charged to the sector have increased to help deal with the large backlog of work.
recent study from consulting firm XI Technologies of Calgary found the number of companies producing oil and gas in Western Canada has dropped by almost 300 or 17.5 per cent since 2014.
Last month, one landowner group suggested cleaning up all of the old and unproductive oil and gas wells in Alberta will cost between $40 billion and $70 billion.

Corrections

  • An earlier version of this story said Trident had 4,400 wells. In fact, the company has approximately 3,650 wells, 240 facilities and 500 pipelines, according to the Alberta Energy Regulator.
    May 03, 2019 11:32 AM ET




THE COINCIDENTAL BIRTH OF THE NEW DEMOCRATS 
AND THE OIL INDUSTRY IN ALBERTA

THE NEW ALBERTA ADVANTAGE



Change Alberta
WHAT HAPPENS TO ALBERTA OIL WHEN DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS AND/OR MASS ELECTRIFICATION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT ARE INTRODUCED SWIFTLY?---AND WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER BELIEVE A WORD FROM VIVIAN KRAUSE
Apart from Opposition Leader Rachel Notley's excellent speech, almost nothing was reported in the corporate media from the Alberta Federation of Labour convention. That reflects the fact that no media organization in Canada now has a "labour beat" whereas 50 years ago, every daily newspaper had a labour beat and in some cases, e.g. in Windsor and Sudbury, it was the major beat. Before the premier spoke on Saturday afternoon, not a single corporate media reporter was in the room at the AFL biennial meeting. I was one of the speakers and so I heard the reports each morning indicating that there were zero media people present.
More's the pity. One of the best speeches was by Energi News columnist Markham Hislop. Hislop demonstrated that the claims of the UCP during the election, fronted by Vivian Krause, who mostly earns her income as a speaker for the oil, gas, and minining industries, regarding oilsands opponents in Canada, are misleading, to say the least. The media, he noted, almost never report how much money the anti-oilsands-expansion campaigns have received. Hislop noted that at their peak they received about $4 million from various funders. He called that a "rounding error" versus the $10 billion a year that the oilsands companies have earned in profts in recent years despite the economic downturn of their industry. They easily outspend the environmentalists in making their case.
Krause and Jason Kenney have suggested that the environmentalists are simply puppets of big American oil companies whose charitable foundations fund Canadian anti-oilsands work so as to strand Canadian oil and buttress the American industry. But that makes no sense. The Rockefellers made their fortune from oil but are no longer part of that industry. And the charitable foundations did not concoct a plan to hire Canadian environmentalists. The reverse happened. The environmentalists approached foundations for funding. But, noted Hislop, that funding slowed to a trickle when former Premier Notley announced her Climate Leadership Strategy in November, 2015. The foundations believed that strategy balanced environmental and energy industry needs even if the anti-oilsands organizations did not. So, most of the money that Krause and Kenney claim that they want to stop reaching environmentalists stopped reaching them long ago.
Anyway,the environmentalists whom Krause wants to pretend are agents of American oil barons are not just anti-oilsands, they are against all oil. Increasingly, so is the whole world. Hislop is a strong supporter of the Notley government's efforts to reduce Alberta reliance on oil extraction in favour of upgrading of the oil and sponsoring renewables, as well as diversifying the economy away from just fossil fuels. He pointed out that a relatively small decline in oil demand tanked global oil prices in 2014. It led to oil companies using artificial intelligence to lower their costs (and therefore jobs) so that they could continue to thrive while energy prices are low. They aren't going to increase their labour intensity if miraculously oil prices come back to 2014 values; they will instead just make super-profits.
In any case, at some point, perhaps in 20 years, though it could come much sooner, and when it comes it will be overnight, demand for oil will fall precipitously. Sixty percent of oil is used for transportation and a swift introduction of driverless, electric cars could cut that transportation demand in half quickly. That would put oil prices in the basement and expensive-to-produce, low-quality oil like the oilsands product might be cut out of the market completely.
Or mass electrification of urban transit in Asia, already developing quickly, could take a giant leap, with impacts similar to what driverless vehicles might cause.
In both cases, if Alberta is caught without an economy that has made a big transition from the oil economy to a new, low-carbon economy, Alberta would find itself in a huge crisis. And the paranoids like Kenney and Krause, not the environmentalists, would be to blame for that lack of readiness.

Photos: Remembering the May 4, 1970, shootings at Kent State University


103 Photos: Remembering the May 4, 1970, shootings at Kent State University


"Ohio" is a protest song written and composed by Neil Young in reaction to the Kent State shootings of May 4, 1970, and performed by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. It was released as a single, backed with Stephen Stills "Find the Cost of Freedom," peaking at #14 on the Billboard Hot 100. Although a live version of the song was included on the group's 1971 double album Four Way Street, the studio versions of both songs did not appear on an LP until the group's compilation So Far was released in 1974. The song also appeared on the Neil Young compilation album Decade, released in 1977


Technology & Science

Permafrost is thawing in the Arctic so fast that scientists are losing their equipment

Instead of a few centimetres of thaw a year, several metres of soil can destabilize within days

Abrupt permafrost thawing has caused a large landslide into a side channel of the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories. Permafrost in some areas of the Canadian Arctic is thawing so fast that it's gulping up equipment left there to study it. (Carolyn Gibson/Canadian Press)
"The ground thaws and swallows it," said Merritt Turetsky, a University of Guelph biologist whose new research warns the rapid thaw could dramatically increase the amounts of greenhouse gases released from ancient plants and animals frozen within the tundra.
"We've put cameras in the ground, we've put temperature equipment in the ground, and it gets flooded. It often happens so fast we can't get out there and rescue it
"We've lost dozens of field sites. We were collecting data on a forest and all of a sudden it's a lake."
Turetsky's research, published this week in the journal Nature, looks at the rate of permafrost thaw across the Arctic and what its impact could be on attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
It's been known for years that the vast belts of frozen soil that underlie much of the North are thawing as the Arctic warms. That releases greenhouse gases as organic carbon from plants and animals, once locked away in the ice, thaws and decomposes.

'Crazy liquefication'

Climate scientists have assumed a slow, steady erosion of permafrost and a similar pace of carbon release. Turetsky and her colleagues found something different.
Instead of a few centimetres of thaw a year, several metres of soil can destabilize within days. Landscapes collapse into sinkholes. Hillsides slide away to expose deep permafrost that would otherwise have remained insulated.
Thawing permafrost and ice are visible along the coast of the Mackenzie Delta. (Roger MacLeod/Natural Resources Canada)
"Permafrost at [that] depth, even 100 years from now, probably would still be protected in the soil," she said. "Except here comes this really crazy liquefication where this abrupt thaw really churns up this stuff."
Wildfires, becoming larger and hotter every year over the Canadian boreal forest, are also causing rapid permafrost thaw.
Nearly one-fifth of Arctic permafrost is now vulnerable to rapid warming, Turetsky's paper suggests. Plenty of it is in Canada, such as in the lowlands south of Hudson Bay.
Soil analysis found those quickly thawing areas also contain the most carbon. Nearly 80 per cent of them hold at least 70 kilograms of carbon per cubic metre.
That suggests permafrost is likely to release up to 50 per cent more greenhouse gases than climate scientists have believed. As well, much of it will be released as methane, which is about 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas than carbon dioxide.
"These are minimum estimates," Turetsky said. "We've been very conservative."
Despite the rapid thaw, it'll be decades before the extra carbon release starts to influence global climate. "We've got a bit of time."
The abrupt collapsing of permafrost, however, will affect northerners long before that.
"The landscape is going to be affected more and more every year by permafrost degradation," Turetsky said.
"We've got a lot of people living on top of permafrost and building infrastructure on top of permafrost. It's enough to sink northern budgets."

Corrections

  • An earlier version of this Canadian Press story incorrectly said methane is about 30 per cent more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. In fact, it's about 30 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
    May 03, 2019 8:27 AM ET

New Green Party poll puts Paul Manly in lead in Nanaimo-Ladysmith byelection

WATCH: The final push is on in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, as campaigns give it all they’ve got ahead of Monday’s hotly contested federal byelection. As Skye Ryan reports, new polling for the Green Party suggests it may no longer be the NDP stronghold it once was.

The Green Party’s Paul Manly has never felt so good about his chances.
“Let’s send some reinforcements to Ottawa,” Manly told a cheering crowd outside his campaign headquarters.
On the final campaign weekend ahead of Monday’s byelection in Nanaimo-Ladysmith his team is fuelled by some positive new polling.
Data that if to be trusted, which recent elections have shown polls often can’t be, the Greens are way out ahead in the race.
“I can pretty much guarantee that we will come first or second,” said Manly’s campaign manager Ilan Goldenblatt.
“I was happy to see it,” said Green candidate Paul Manly.
“But I’m not taking it for granted.”
It would be a historic result in the riding that is traditionally an NDP stronghold.
“I really believe in what you feel on the ground,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
“And when you’re talking to people. And there’s definitely a buzz.”
The polling was done May 1 by Oracle Poll Research, with a sampling size of 500 people in live calls within the riding, with a margin of error within 4.4 points.
According to the poll, the Greens have scrambled a 14-point increase since March and are widening their lead over the NDP that the poll suggests are losing support.
“Polls are polls,” said NDP candidate Bob Chamberlin.
“I mean I’m doing the work and I’m letting people know about the experience I have especially on the environment.”
Shaking hands in downtown Ladysmith Saturday, Chamberlin said he’s confident the NDP will hold on to the riding.
Liberal candidate Michelle Corfield said the Liberal vote can’t be counted out either.
“I am the only one that can deliver a seat at the table,” said Michelle Corfield.
“I am the only one who has the opportunity to bring Nanaimo-Ladysmith issues to the current government while they’re sitting.”
As this mid-Island riding decides its course going forward, Monday’s byelection may prove if polls have finally gotten it right or are out of touch once again.

Boris Kagarlitsky: We have to develop a new class consciousness through new practice and organization to mobilize these social groups for struggle
Saturday, November 24, 2018
13 min read



foto: INRU
Posted on Nov 24, 2018 by IL GRIDO DEL POPOLO
Boris Y. Kagarlitsky (1958) is a Russian Marxist theoretician and sociologist who has been a political dissident in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia. He is coordinator of the Transnational Institute Global Crisis Project and director of the Institute of Globalization and social Movements in Moscow, that also runs Rabkor.
Kagarlitsky’s books include: “From Empires to Imperialism: The state and the Rise of Bourgeoise Civilization” (2014)  ,  “Empire of Periphery: Russia and the World System” (2008) , “Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-Liberal Autocracy” (2002) , “New Realism, New Barbarism: The Crisis of Capitalism” (1999) , “The Return of Radicalism: Reshaping the Left Institutions” (1999) , “The Twilight of Globalization: Property State and Capitalism” (1999) , “ Restoration in Russia: Why Capitalism Failed” (1995) , “Square Wheels: How Russian Democracy Got Derailed” (1994) , “The Disintegration of the Monolith” (1993) , “Thinking Reed, The: Intellectuals and the Soviet State 1917 to the Present” (1989).
Boris, tell me first of all about your political activism and dissidence during the ’80s?
My political views were initially formed by the experience of my parents’ generation. In the 1950s and early 1960s there was a lot of enthusiasm about destalinisation and democratic change initiated by XX Congress of the Communist Party of Soviet Union. It was clearly seen as a confirmation of moral strength of communist ideas and Soviet system that was capable to correct itself. These expectations suffered a great defeat with Soviet invasion in Czechslovakia in 1968. At that point most of the elite intelligentsia changed their views starting to look at Western liberal democracy as a solution, at least in ideological and moral terms. But quire a few remained committed to socialist principles. Much of that was discussed at home with my parents, I grew up listening to these debates. It became clear to me that intervention of 1968 which was the defeat for democratic socialism also was the evidence of the strength of these ideas. They were not defeated through debates, so the only way to defeat them was to use tanks. Than came 1973, the coup in Chile. Which proved the same conclusion. Socialist democracy can’t be defeated as a principle, it can only be crashed by force.
In 1978 I joined a small underground group of young marxists who were involved in producing samizdat material critically analysing Soviet reality and discussing the crisis which the system was facing. We also spent much time reading and discussing Marxist theoretical and historical texts which were not published, not recommended or banned in the USSR (from Trotsky to Marcuse, from Gramsci to Wallerstein).
In 1982 we were arrested and spent 13 months in jail, but then Brezhnev died and we were released. Later in 1990 when perestroika was already under way I was elected to Moscow City Soviet. When Yeltsin launched a coup in 1993, I was among those who resisted and was arrested again but released 2 days later. By the way last time I faced repressive force of the state already under Putin. In 2013 my flat was searched.
In your political essay: “Russia 1917 and the global Revolution” you ask the question; ‘why Russia’, and I ask you why Russia, but not England or Germany?
It was Gramsci who initally described Russian revolution as a revolution against «The Capital» stressin that it happened contrary to the theories of orthodox Marxists. However I think that there is not much to be added to what Lenin said and write. Capitalist crisis was global but revolution took place in the weakest link of the system. Lenin didn’t know yet about world-system theory which understands capitalism as a global phenomenon. But he understood the logic of the process. And by the way, though world-system theory as we know it emerged only in 1970s, Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Pokrovsky in 1900s came to conclusions very similar to those later formulated by Immanuel Wallerstein and Samir Amin. It is no accident that both Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Pokrovsky were born in Russian Empire. Pokrovsky was later almost completely forgotten because his works were publically denounced under Stalin in 1930s. But one should note that in November 1917 he was considered by some Bolsheviks as a candidate to replace Lenin if they were to form a coalition with Mensheviks. Of course Lenin was not a kind of political figure to be replaced. But it is interesting to note that in the Bolshevik party Pokrovsky was seen as a leading theorist next to Lenin.
Is today’s world precariat aware of its power and its labor rights?
I don’t like the word «precariat» it represents the frustration of Western middle classes with deteriorated social conditions and re-proletarisation. In fact, there is nothing in the condition of so called «precariat» that was not characteristic for the proletariat in classical marxist terms. But exploited members of European decaying middle class don’t want to be called intellectual or skilled proletarians, so they involve a new term.
Of course we see that much of the society is now becoming declasse, people are socially lumpenised even when their actual material condition is not so catastrophic. Of course, we have to develop a new class consciousness through new practice and organisation to mobilise these social groups for struggle.
Are globalization and capitalism in crisis today?
Of course they are. Neoliberal model is in crisis. This model presupposed the use of cheap labour and deconstruction of Welfare state going on together with growing consumption. However together with Welfare state they undermined the consumer society as well. This could continue as long as one had unlimited resources of cheap labour in the Far East. But this is over now. China’s labour resources are also limited. Workers demand higher wages in China as well as in other countries. Class struggle is becoming reality in new industrial countries. And decline of Western working class turned into a global demand crisis. Capitalism can’t solve these contradictions without re-industrialising old industrial countries (on the basis of new technologies, of course). But that means recreating conditions for strong unions, and for a strong and militant left fighting to rebuild the Welfare state. Will this fight lead further to bring about new socialist revolutions? Quite possible.
How do the Left and Labour in Russia under Putin survive today?
The main problem is not Putin or repressions. In fact Russian authoritarian state is rather soft compared to almost every other post-Soviet regimes including Ukraine which is so positively described by Western press. The main problem is the demoralisation and apathy of the masses after the shock of «terrible 1990s».
However the situation is changing. Mass protests against the pension reform and protest vote in many regions where people elected whatever candidate just to kick out representatives of Kremlin show us that the mood is up again. So the struggle continues.
In the book “Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-liberal Autocracy” you talk about the period of authoritarian rule in the country, how many things have changed today after two decades of Vladimir Vladimirovich’s rule?
Things got worse in political terms. But in 2000-2008 there was a real recovery of living standards. Throughout the period of 2008-2016 these standards we stagnating and now we are back into the situation of falling wages and rapidly deteriorating living conditions. Not surprisingly that generates protest.
About 90% of the population opposed pension reforms. The Kremlin disregarded this position of citizens. But that led to a massive change in public opinion when Putin’s rating collapsed.
Tell me how the pension reforms will affect the Russian economy and the standard of citizens?
Russian pension law allows you to get pension without leaving your job. So when pension age is increased it doesn’t mean you are going to continue working for longer (most people here work till they are 67-70 years old) but that only means you are going to have less money. To make things worse, average male life expectancy is about 64-65 in Russia. That means that most men simply will not get pensions at all.
Russia has for years been giving back its Siberian forest fund to mining Chinese companies, how do you look at this exploitation?
Chinese capital has very bad reputation in Russia, and even worse in Siberia. But within neoliberal system there is no way one can protect forest or other resources effectively. The problem is not only with the Chinese, Russian companies are not much better.
In Irkutsk province, where so far we have the only progressive regional government under Serguey Levchenko (elected on KPRF ticket in 2015) they managed to introduce an ecological standards much more tough than elsewhere in Siberia. For a year private companies were boycotting this region. Now they are coming back accepting these conditions, but the question is whether Levchenko administration will survive. It is under constant attack. At the same time it proves that things can be done differently on a provincial level. Why not on the national level then?
Why was the KPRF “thrown out” in this year’s presidential election for its candidate, neoliberal Grudinin, and not Zyuganov, is that part of the deal with Putin?
Putin’s popularity was declining for years but most people were not really negative about the president. They simply didn’t care and had no opinion about him. Society is totally depoliticised. Elections in 2018 had to legitimise the regime to prepare ground for a new set of anti-social neoliberal reforms. KPRF leader Gennadiy Ziuganov is not interesting for anyone and his presence in the race was going to increase absenteeism. So the Kremlin needed a new face to generate some interest but a person without any chance of winning or even attracting enough support to change electoral statistics. A billionaire Pavel Grudinin looked like a good option. He is not a neoliberal but rather represent the section of business elite not very happy with current economic policies. However the calculation made by the administration was correct. Grudinin somewhat increased electoral participation without changing the outcome. As for the left, most groups called for boycott. The only serious exception was Left Front that unconditionally supported Gridinin and KPRF.
Can we call Russia imperialist power today after interventionism in Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Syria…?
Let’s be clear: post-Soviet states represent no more than pieces of a larger society which was destroyed and split by capitalist restoration. In that sense we can speak about Russia intervening in Ukraine or Crimea no more than we could speak about the Duke of Milano intervening in the affairs of Florence or Garibaldi backed by Piemontese imperialism illegally taking over Sicily from legitimate Kingdom of Naples. This doesn’t mean that Russia has the right to intervene or that it is doing something positive. It only means that this situation can’t be discussed without understanding that these states are not nation states in the traditional sense. Neither is Russia by the way. Sooner or later the whole post-Soviet state system will collapse. It may bring about quite a lot of new violence.
Destruction of Austro-Hungatian political and social space in 1918 was essential part of pan-European effort of the ruling classes to stop and prevent revolution in Central Europe. Capitalist restoration led to the destruction of Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and even Czechoslovakia. Do you think it is an accident? Splitting larger societies into smaller ones is part of the neoliberal project, part of the general logic of fragmentation. And when the left supports the logic of fragmentation it works against the logic of social change. This is something that Rosa Luxemburg noted critically to Lenin. And in practice he had to follow her advise even without recognising it.
This is the dilemma which Lenin was facing. On the one hand you have to respect the rights of all peoples and ethnic groups, but on the other hand without bringing back together the social and economic space of the former Empire, there is no way to guarantee the survival of a socialist republic.
The solution, of course, is not expansion of current Russian state, but social change within all these «new countries». We have to do our work inside today’s Russia because this is the biggest and most important piece. Today’s Russia has a reactionary government but this may change. And it will happen probably much sooner than you expect.
What do you think of the Russian influence in the Balkans, and does the Kremlin slowly give up its interest in that area after Montenegro joins NATO and diplomatic pressure on the West to Macedonia to change its name in order to join NATO?
Russian government is on the retreat globally. No matter what they say, their aim is deal with the West. Accumulation process of Russian capitalism is externally oriented. In the long run capitalist regime in Russia makes no sense if it is not part of global capitalist system. It is a country that survives on the export of raw materials. One can move export to China but Western financial and real estates markets are crucial for the reproduction of Russian capitalist elite. So they are not fighting to defeat the West, they are trying to get a better deal. However the West is in crisis itself and can’t afford concessions to Russian oligarchs either. This is a dead end situation, but Russian elites are weaker. So they are gradually pulling back.
They will scale down their presence in the Balkans and even in Syria. This war is unpopular with the people and even with some sections of the bourgeoisie.
And finally, how/where you see Russia after Putin’s rule?
There is a big difference between what we want and what really comes out. Russian people want change and there is a popular consensus for a so called «left turn» — restoration of Welfare state, nationalisation of big corporations controlled by the oligarchy, increasing social mobility. I guess this is a popular mood more or less everywhere. But the state and the elites are determined not to let it happen. And without serious struggle this will not happen (even though we are speaking about a very moderate reformist programme). The question is whether people are ready for a serious fight after so many years of apathy and depolitisation. However I’m optimistic. People will learn in the process of struggle.
The interview was taken by Gordan Stosevic




 Ilya Ponomaryov: The Russian elite used to, and now perceives many theories uncritically, and applies them dogmatically, formally

Posted on Nov 1, 2018 by IL GRIDO DEL POPOLO
This publication is the first independent internationalist INTERNET PORTAL 
FIRST SERIES OF THE SESSION “Dialogue with Ilya Ponomaryov”: discusses recent nation-wide protest reactions that have passed during the summer in 2018 in RUSSIA – as a resonance antisocial pension reforms of the ruling class, headed by President Vladimir Putin.
Hello, comrade Ilya! Today I would like to hear your
opinion on the current difficult socio-political situation in the Russian Federation, provoked by the antisocial legislative policy of the authorities, not the stranger’s opinion, but due to the physical distance from our latitudes, not immersed in the raging passions. Your view on what is happening is also particularly interesting because, in my opinion, in multi-level modern politics you try to keep to the line that is very close to the “theoretical- practitioner” image, the importance of which you wrote at the beginning of the twentieth century, Antonio Gramsci.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: So, in your opinion, what is the true essence and motivational characteristics of those steps towards a radical change in the Russian pension legislation that the Russian ruling class has taken, trying to justify them as “necessary for overcoming the long-overdue crisis of Russian socio- economic policy?”.
ILYA PONOMARYOV: I think this reform is “a reflection of the accounting approach to them. A.L. Kudrin (Kudrin Alexey Leonidovich – Minister of Finance of Russia in 2000–2011. Successive pro-capitalist line of neoliberal economic policies laid down by Yeltsin’s Prime Minister Ye.T. Gaidar. One of the “architects” who entered into force on the anti-people “Pension reform.” After being removed from his post, – since 2012 – one of the leaders of the radical liberal opposition. – AA) ”. Instead of the really necessary reform of the pension system that went bankrupt as a result of inconsistent neoliberal experiments, the government wants, without changing anything, to simply patch the hole – naturally, at the expense of retirees.
Putin was delaying these steps until the end of the federal election season, and, of course, he cynically tried to drive him out during the World Cup. I think that he only additionally turned people against himself.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: How do you think, to what degree did the Government of the Russian Federation and the Presidential Office forecast the volume of protest resonance that followed in reality – right after Prime Minister Medvedev announced it publicly through the media on June 14?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: The government is here-dependent people. Prime Minister Medvedev and Kudrin are enemies. If Kudrin had not persuaded Putin, Prime Minister Medvedev would hardly have exploited a “legislative adventure”. It was not by chance that his closest associate, responsible for PR, Natalia Timakova, quit his job.
I think the Kremlin is now quite a strong degradation of predictive abilities. Such decisions are made by Putin personally, and they believe that they will still be able to turn the tide through the media.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: Do you agree with the opinion that many interested observers are now developing about the processes taking place in the Russian Federation, according to which – at this stage it is
definitely possible to say that in the current intrastate confrontation, two real different-vector forces have finally clearly manifested themselves Of Russia: the first is the state bourgeois apparatus, which has manifested its too repressive function, which is overwhelming the will of the people, and the second is the main part of the population of Russia, who has realized itself now Is it socially unprotected, regardless of belonging to a particular social group?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: I would like to believe in it, but I don’t think so. Citizens of Russia have long divided the country into “we” and “they” – “we”, hard workers, and “they” – power, security forces, the rich, etc. But this does not mean that “we” are clearly aware of class interests and are able to oppose “them” in an organized way. To protest, primarily in the form of passive non-participation in the elections, or participation with a protest vote for anyone, if only not from “them,” is yes. But this is not enough for change in the country.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: What do you think, are mass protests of Russians against pension reform evidence that the process of forming collective social solidarity that has begun has entered a phase of its development that will naturally lead to the awakening of class consciousness of a new community that has recently begun its formation as an antagonist to the modern suprastate united bourgeois class? After all, we all watched for a long time how, against the background of a long socially stable existence, the workers and employees of the late USSR, before its collapse, did the masses manage to lose their class instincts, being not ready, defenseless, disconnected and confused before the fact of the new round of capitalization of Russia?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: No. According to Marxist theory, the budget-dependent and non-productive labor strata should be classified as the lumpen-proletariat. He, too, can show protest moods, but he cannot be a support for transformations, and the authorities always have the opportunity to manipulate them in their own interests.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: Can you try to give an objective, balanced assessment of the organization’s work of “The Confederation of Labor of Russia conditionally having independent status and, in our opinion, of the frankly pro-Kremlin “Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia” involved in the processes we are discussing?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: Creating a unified organization of truly independent trade unions “The Confederation of Labor of Russia” was a great success over the past decade. I am proud that I was able to provide this feasible assistance. “Yellowed” for a long time to conjunct trade unions, such as the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia, it’s time to go to the dustbin of history, I have no doubt that soon they will be there. They are not and should not be revolutionaries. Their task is to reach an agreement with the employer, to achieve the maximum possible to alleviate the position of their members, employees of enterprises. Political work on changing the socio-economic system as a whole is a matter of political organizations.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: Comrade Ponomaryov, are you satisfied as a political opposition activist who already has experience in the struggle with the measure of political consciousness of the Russian population that was manifested as a public resonance 2018 g – against the offensive of the bourgeois Russian elite on the existing pension social norms?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: I will be satisfied when it changes in the country will be replaced by socio-political kaya system. But the ability of people not to stay at home on the couch, as some called for, including opposition politicians, inspires hope. And the rally, and campaign elections, and more radical methods; in the struggle for change, there is no superfluous.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: Do you think that the theoretical assumption is permissible and meets reality that all steps of the Russian ruling bourgeois class, which is “armed” with the dusty neoliberal theory issued
by the coordinated international ruling elite (and, We know that it has long been discredited by the political and economic global crisis provoked by its use), it is at this moment that it has an “Achilles heel,” which is what causes feverish legislative seizures in the form of about the attack on the social rights of the majority of the population, and – is it easy to break now?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: The Russian elite used to, and now perceives many theories uncritically, and applies them dogmatically, formally. Such an approach once brought the USSR into a dead end; he also discredited liberalism in the eyes of the majority of the population and allowed Putin endless possibilities for manipulation. The “Achilles heel of neoliberalism” is in contradiction between the radical market approach bordering on libertarianism and the need to curtail the democratic rights of citizens without which it is impossible to get a mandate for neoliberal steps in the economy. This contradiction splits the liberals themselves, shows the hypocrisy of their leaders, and can only be resolved by transferring power into the hands of the citizens themselves, on which the left insist. I think that in the framework of representative democracy this is not feasible, therefore, as the slogan “All power to the Soviets” was on the agenda a hundred years ago, now we must achieve the universal introduction of direct democracy mechanisms, without any intermediaries.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: Ilya, in your honest opinion: The reforms provoked by the Government and supported by President Putin will lead to the depletion of the protest potential of the country’s population, due to the initial total ineffectiveness of the spent socially resistant energy LI – these processes can be assessed as the first stage of the proto-class struggle, giving the population an understanding that the Authority has entered an active phase of social discrimination of Russians, the answer to which will be followed by the formation of a potential revolutionary human resource – with an awakened class consciousness?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: This is a very useful an episode that helped many see that the Kremlin’s military adventures were only a red herring. Popularity, Putin’s rating returned – to “pre-Crimean” times, and this is a very important, albeit intermediate, result.
ALENA AGHEEVA: Do you think that in the stage of All-Russian mass protests that took place from June to September 2018, is there a danger? multi-political “layer” of systemic and non-systemic opposition formations, which assumed the role of organizing force, and, in reality, simply using an extremely convenient excuse, in order to increase the citation rating in global political monitoring, reanimation of the lost political role and other party “selfish” motives, for which real national aspirations, as a result, will remain “behind”?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: Of course. The lies and hypocrisy of individual politicians who change their views for the sake of conjuncture, of course, undermine the credibility of the opposition as a whole. Moreover, there is no doubt that the liberal part of the opposition, if it comes to power, will generally continue and even deepen the same socio-economic policy that Putin is now leading. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about it. Now we just need to work with our supporters, tell the truth, and be sure that history will judge us, and people will figure it out.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: Your practical and technological recommendations: Is it possible to go further, somewhat more effective than mass clashes with the police, anti-government strategy of self-organizing Resistance, which forms – alternative protest spontaneity, – instruments of pressure on the power structures or technology of the interregional tactical grass-roots destabilization of the current regime ?, And the real refractive index of the political line of the center of Ilya Ponomaryov: It is important to create two key elements – regional organizations, working permanently in contact with the center, and the mass media has the opportunity to conduct a dialogue beyond the traditional activist, protest environment. Power itself will do the rest, it works to create a revolutionary situation day and night.
ALYONA AGHEEVA: As a result of the first dialogue with you at RESISTENTIAM.COM, a consultation: If we, as an internationalist action, are preparing a series of international actions to support All-Russian social protest, What Russian organizations that are most organized and acting in the paradigm of the class struggle, spokesmen for the popular anti-bourgeois resistance, have you advised to focus on – in terms of cooperation in this area?
ILYA PONOMARYOV: I think it’s always necessary to rely on yourself. And inviting everyone who shares the program principles of your structure is, in the end, all riotous, and we have exactly the same name and are well known.
The interview was taken by Alyona Agheeva