By Pavel Kollar
I am not surprised that some leaders in post(or present)-communist countries(I mean Russia in the first place) are frustrated by the situation in their countries, neither am I surprised by their reactions. To look for cause of the situation somewhere else only not on the right place, belongs to tradition of these countries. Beginning of this decade, when the changes to democracy were on way, the communist opposition almost in all ex-communist countries played on (anti)Zionist-card, because this had ever a strong popular appeal. In some countries(Slovakia for ex.), they even sacrificed Lenin to expose the 'doctrine' of Zionism, and created a doctrine of 'national capital', according which no one foreigner can own any national property(but to invest his or her money yes, if ready to bear risk). But this 'defence wall' against the intrusion of foreign capital proved soon to be a platform for putting own hand over this capital. And this happened much before the present 'oligarches' became what they are today.
It is true that international capital has some behavioural patterns in given circumstances, but these were known also to decision makers of that time. I wonder how can somebody blame international capital for leaving some country, in which the conditions are so bad that even the native citizens flee from it, and fled possibly even more in the time when in this country the social system was the so called 'communist paradise'. Why this capital has not fled from the postwar Western Germany for ex.? Who is to be blamed that in these countries the conditions are such that they do not attract capital, but purge it out of the country? The small group of citizens of Jewish origin or the majority? And what about the behaviour of this capital in America for ex. where the capitalists are quitting their businesses and move their money to other countries, in search of better conditions. Is this not 'plunder'?
One element of the policy of democratization was also the privatization of state property and transition to market economy. And this policy, in general, was supported also by West and some international institutions. But the final decisions about the implementation and adjustment of this policy were made by the politicians of these countries. Regarding the way of privatization there were more alternatives and these were known also to decision makers in that time. There were proposals which seemed less attractive for 'grabbers' but offered more stability in functioning of the economy. But in spite of all this, there was chosen a way which already that time seemed very risky for the stability. Why? This happened because the personal interests of some politicians overrode their feeling of public responsibility coming from their function. The impulse of getting rich overnight was stronger than the bother about the consequences of some decisions. And these politicians that time were neither Zionists nor pro-westerns but ex-communists or very near to the ex-communist leadership. Those who are today declared as Zionists came later, when the conditions already existed for snatching a piece of cake.
Communists are people of special type. Their long-run memory functions only when there are some benefits from this, otherwise not. In communism, the real owners of all possible capital(not only business, but private also) were the communist oligarches. They never hid their thoughts about the supremacy in the world, and this their 'internationalism' was manifested several times(1956 and 1968 for ex.). I remember in 1968 there were graffities on the walls putting equation sign between swastika and communist star, and this being in land which also followed this type of 'internationalism' but in something different way. Hitler sent Jews to gas-chambers because there did not exist Jewish state that time. Today, Mr. Zyuganov welcomes Jews who want to leave Russia. Lucky they that there exist a Jewish state.
Loyalty and collectivism were ever high ranking values in all Slav(especially orthodox) countries and labelling somebody else with disloyalty and betray was ever the easiest way of degrading the one who in some way was different from the mainstream. But this system was also the easiest way of grabbing of power by those with high aspirations but little capacity to govern for the prosperity of broad public. And I think, this is the real cause of 'catastrophic' situation when 'mass impoverishment'(according the official statistics, disregarding the underground market ) and 'dying out population'(according the public registers, but alive under the exchanged name, this is also a peculiarity of Slav-orthodox culture).
Equally what is the motive of this open attack against 'Zionists' and (indirectly on West) I think there would be a great mistake by those who are labelled with this name if they remain silent and miss giving a documented answer on all accusations. Possible such answers were missed in the past, when similar developments run in other parts of Europe, with all known consequences.