Lenin's revenge

Vladimir Lenin to cement his leadership role in the Communist Party (RSDRP(b)--Russia's Social Democratic Party--Bolshevik) had to write treatises on Marxist theory. This was not an innovation--for instance, Napoleon III, the Little, had to issue artillery manual to hide in the mantle of his uncle, Napoleon I, the Great. But Lenin's 1914 opus, Imperialism as the Highest and the Final Stage of Capitalism, was shamefully kowtowed by the college teachers of Marxism-Leninism in my youth. The reason was obvious--his treatise, largely plagiarized from Rudolf Hilferding (1877-1941)--contained very specific predictions, which turned  spectacularly wrong. First, that in the coming epoch, financial capital will acquire higher and higher role and replace the industrial capital in the future societies. Second that because of easy transfer of financial assets in relation to industrial assets, the capital transfers will dwarf the commerce in goods and services. Third that this will result in expansion of colonial policies. Finally, the continuous colonial expansion will lead to incessant wars by the imperialist powers.

In the 1960s all this seemed entirely absurd. Industrial giants, like Boeing, Ford or General Motors, towered over meager servants of the American industry such as Mellon Bank or Chase Chemical. International commerce exceeded international investment multiple times. Former colonies acquired independence every other day. Finally, most Western powers seem to lose completely their appetite for military adventures and when they did, as in Vietnam, they failed miserably. 

This became clear even in 1920-1930s when the most dynamic of the Western societies did not have colonies (USA and Germany) and their banks evolved from the masters of the economy in Wilhelmine Germany or Robber-Baron age in the US into "home banks" for the industries, like Mellon for the US Steel or Dresdner and Schaffhausen? for Thyssen and Stinnes' empires. To remedy the situation--when the Marxist literature still had to be read by aspiring Party functionaries--Nicolai Bukharin and Eugene Varga produced theory of "State-Monopolistic Capitalism". In the State-Monopolistic Capitalism framework, the future capitalist state instead of pursuing laissez-faire policies will interfere more and more in economy with the goal of its stabilization, primarily on the side of national monopolies. Bukharin was shot in 1939?, Varga was demoted from all party posts in 1947 because his theory suggested continuing vitality of capitalism, which did not sound good on the outset of the Cold War. Yet, probably because he predicted the success of the New Deal, in the face of Komintern dogma of the impending "General crisis (doom) of capitalism", he was sufficiently valued by Stalin to exterminate him outright. 

Unlike the Lenin-Hilferding work, which was glossed over and forgotten, the theory of State-Monopolistic Capitalism, became the centerpiece of Soviet Political Economy even after the demise of its founders. In particular, it fit very well with the Eisenhower's notion of Military-Industrial Complex and the realities of the Cold War. Only with perestroika when laissez-faire doctrines shoved by Reagan propaganda started to reach the Eastern Bloc in earnest, the Bukharin-Varga theories lost their attraction. Soft voices of the Soviet economists who grew up in Marxist schools and who suggested that Reagan-era policies were hardly a realization of dreams of J.-B. Say and von Hayek, were drowned by the victorious new orthodoxy. By the early 1990s, Czech researchers who were suspect in Keynesian sympathies, were as thoroughly purged from academia as their 1960s predecessors questioning Marxism-Leninism.

But, currently, the old predictions came back with the vengeance. Capital flows have exceeded transfers of goods and services between the nations. Compensation of the managers of hedge funds exceeds dozens of times the compensation of CEOs of the largest industrial and service companies. The largest financial institutions, particularly the ones created by Soros and Paul Singer, even conduct their own foreign policy. United States and its allies are engaged in continuous colonial warfare--directly, such as Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq, only from the air as in Libya and former Yugoslavia, or by weapons and money transfers (e.g. South Sudan but also in myriad other places).

Not that the State-Monopolistic Capitalism theory of Bukharin and Varga did not find its own revenge. Currently, most of the growth of the market capitalization of the large companies in the USA comes to the virtual monopolies, so tightly related to the intelligence community that, for a while, the notion of "Intelligence-Industrial Complex" by the analogy of the "Military Industrial Complex" of Eisenhower appeared in the media. Of course, they did not like it and it disappeared without a trace.

Microsoft, which absorbed Skype, Google, partnering with Linkedin, Amazon and ubiquitous Facebook are the giant vacuum cleaners obtaining terabytes of private information. CNN, CNBC and Fox conduct 24-7 broadcast on TV screens all over the world, the first two mostly aligned with US Government propaganda and "Fox" dancing to the tune of one man, Prince Ruprecht of Murdoch. In the case of CNN former heads of intelligence, such as Brennan, or Clapper, or their "pocket congressmen"--Adam Schiff, or Mike Rogers--and a clutter of smaller spooks became a sad fixture of any international commentary. Not to speak of the cottage industry of the "think tanks", which used to be like RAND in its best years, intellectual brain trusts, but now became partisan establishments, whose purpose is to justify immature ideas of their founders and sponsors, many former government officials or senators/congressmen themselves, with "scientific" data and research.

Recently, the tentacles of the "Collusion of the power of the militaristic state with that of the capitalist monopolies"--that is how the ancient Marxists characterized their State-Monopolistic Capitalism--reached to specific companies. Direct attacks on Russia's Kaspersky and Rusal--none have anything to do with the Russian military, Ukraine or Crimea--and China's ZTE and Huawei had the only purpose of stifling technological development of the possible competitors. But the heaviest blow fell on Bombardier and Embraer--the flagships of high-tech industries of Canada and Brazil, respectively, which are the allies of the US but do not have the benefit of the state support enjoyed by Russian and Chinese companies--and the Deutsche Bank.

In early 1980s, when the Soviet Union--with Afghanistan occupied and Polish rebellion subsiding-- seemingly was at zenith of its power, I suggested that the superpower with such degree of provincialism, self-deception, dysfunction and narcissistic view of themselves by the elite cannot stand, no matter how many tanks and MIRVs it has in its arsenal. Of course, I was considered a harmless nut by some of my pals and, probably and luckily, by the KGB. But USSR was gone in a decade. American institutions are more robust that Soviet Union's ever were but does this mean that they can suffer infinite amount of wrecking? I don't think so. 

Amateur Anthropology: Reconstruction of Ancient Slavic Pantheon

I reviewed magisterial work of late Academician Rybakov "Paganism of the Ancient Slavs." Rybakov did not have access to the newest scientific methods. DNA analysis of remains was in its infancy; carbon dating of the organic materials existed but required samples too large to be safely removed from archaeological findings and his participation in antisemitic campaigns made him persona non grata for Moscow-Tartu structuralists.

Given these limitations it is remarkable how accurate his analyses were in light of the modern science based on DNA markers and structural toponymics. Yet, both the scholars of Slavic (e.g. Ivanov and Toporov) and Scandinavian paganism mentioned highly disordered character of the pagan pantheons--different deities with similar cults, deities with fluid or un-attributable functions, etc. My amateur reconstruction is based on the following hypothesis (or unintelligent guess, in view of some), namely, that the ancient Slavic, and probably, Scandinavian cultures had two rather harmoniously co-existing pantheons, one--of the peasants and other--of the warrior class.  In particular case of the ancient Eastern Slavs, the warrior pantheon may have had experienced influence of their Scandinavian warrior elite. Pantheons of the higher (heavenly, warrior) class and the lower (earthen, peasant) classes could have been connected by trickster figures.

Both pantheons were structured along four-fold division of natural world. For the peasants, axes were pertaining to time--winter, spring, summer and autumn. For the warriors, directions were aligned with the geographical directions--North, East, South and West. Solar movements from the East to West during the day and the annual solar movements through zodiac organized this picture. Both populations lived sufficiently far in the European North, so that the difference between seasons, difference in winter and summer days and geographical directions was perceptible even for their relative lack of interest in astronomical observations.

      Remarkably, peasant pantheon contained female deities (Мокошь, Рожаницы). Very preliminary scheme above also explains duality of Hors and Dazhd'bog, as well as frequent association of Dazhd'bog, a solar deity with "son of Svarog" because in the annual (peasant) cycle, summer follows winter.

[1] One of the features of any amateur research in humanities is its tendency to explain everything from a single hypothesis. So the following observations should be taken with a grain of salt. Seafaring warrior civilization on the Island of Rugen had Svetovid, the war god of the North as its primary deity. On the contrary, settled peasant culture of Zbruch worshiped quadripartite idol with two male and two female deities.

The plans for Russian pension reform (in Russian)

Russian Federation inherited from the USSR ages for state pensions as 60 for men and 55 for women, which was adopted in 1932 for the workers in the state industries (peasant populations as well as still-significant proportion of workers in urban cooperatives did not have pensions). This measure, in particular, allowed USSR to liquidate unemployment still existing in the early 1930s but it is absolutely irrelevant now. Yet it began to be regarded as an unspoken entitlement similar to the deductible mortgages in the US. This article discusses possible pension reform.

Одной из главных проблем Российской Федерации является стоимость пенсионной системы. В западных средствах массовой информации распространяется картина рано вымирающей России--в действительности, в РФ соотношение пенсионеров и занятых в экономике--аномальное 1.7:1. Никакое общество не в состоянии выдержать такой пенсионной нагрузки.

Италия, страдающая от похожей демографической ситуации, провела весьма успешную пенсионную реформу в 1995 году, предусмотревшую 18-летний переходный период от pay-as-you-go к полностью накопительной системе. Взять Италию за образец в настоящее время мешают нормы выхода на пенсию 60/55, рассматриваемые населением как символ веры. Предлагаемая система не отменяет в явном виде эту норму, но резко уменьшает федеральные пенсионные выплаты лицам не достигшим таргетированного возраста (65/66 лет), следуя в общих чертах, реформе 2013-2015 годов.

 Пенсионный фонд делится на две части (или аккаунта). Лица, вышедшие на пенсию до реформы, компенсируются из расчета фиксированного рублевого портфеля--примерно $140 bn. в 2017 году, 60% за счет взносов, 40%--за счет федерального бюджета, а повышение пенсий осуществляется только за счет выбытия (т.е. смертности), причем расходы на выбывший контингент амортизируются в течение 20 лет (см. диаграмму). По окончании двадцатилетнего периода, оставшиеся средства из накопительного 20%-ного портфеля распределяются между выжившими пенсионерами первой группы и группой No. 2.

Для вновь выходящих на пенсию, оговоренный рост--например, 3% (или ~$4.2 bn. в год) делится на портфели, пропорциональные числу выходящих на пенсию в данном возрасте, с весом, соответствующим возрасту. То есть, мужчины в возрасте 60 лет, впервые выходящие на пенсию, входят с весом 50%, а в возрасте 70 лет--140% (см. таблицу). Дифференциация по стажу осуществляется, но исключительно в пределах "портфеля" своей возрастной когорты. То есть, алкоголик с раком печени может по-прежнему выйти на пенсию в 60 лет, а (некоторым) здоровым работникам, с горизонтом продолжительности жизни за 80 лет, будет выгоднее подождать лет до 67-70. Прирост пенсий осушествляется только за счет общего роста бюджета и передачи части выморочного капитала в фонд No. 2. Таким образом, по крайней мере, рост пенсионных затрат можно будет ограничить заранее определенным параметром федерального бюджета. Доплаты из местных бюджетов, медицинские, транспортные, жилищные и прочие льготы могут наступать постепенно, в том числе и по прежней формуле 60/55.

После окончания двадцатилетнего периода, пенсионная система переводится на накопительные рельсы по итальянскому образцу.

Because introduction of a new system, no matter how generous, will cause public outcry, the author proposes a referendum with a three choices:

1. Raising of the retirement age to 65 years for all new pensioners, except the mothers who lost children in the operations for the defense of Russian Federation and terrorist acts, and retaining the average Federal cash benefits at approximately 40% of the average taxable salary (practically, Government project).

2. Allowing for the option of retirement beginning form 60 years for men and 55 years for all new retirees but without any particular connection of the monetary benefits with the pre-retirement taxable salary for a given age cohort and with the market-determined raises for the older cohorts (the system proposed above).

3. Continuing the present system of retirement but gradually cutting benefits for both the old and the new retirees by 25-40%.

Serious polling must precede the referendum.

Fig. 1 Scheme of a general design of the system

Fig. 2 Example of cost accounting per cohort based on 2016 age distribution and budget-neutral scenario. 

Fig. 3 "Toy" scenario for 20 year transition to the fully "guaranteed contribution" system. First 11 years. Upper box displays budget-neutral (in constant millions of dollars) scenario.

Fig. 4 "Toy" scenario for the last 9 years of the transitional period. Lower box displays scenario at the average, non-adjusted for salary and work activity years duration, $3,000/yr. benefit for 100% cohort (retiring at 65 years).

Note: The tables only indicate cash Federal Pension Benefit. Expenses on free and subsidized health care for the retirees and additional payments existing in some localities are not included.  

Reform of the system of Higher Education in Russia (in Russian)

Abstract

The system of higher education is underfunded, yet the 1993 Constitution adopted soon after the fall of Communism requires higher education in state institutions being free of charge. The author discusses the option of a  system, which can sustain a constitutional challenge but introducing a modicum of monetization and social responsibility into the higher education.

Главной проблемой экономики Российской Федерации является отсутствие стимулов к риску для большинства населения. В отличие от Китайской Народной Республики, где малый объем социальных льгот и государственных субсидий вынуждает широкие слои населения идти на предпринимательские и инвестиционные риски, в РФ главным инструментом развития все же является государство.

В частности, система высшего образования по-прежнему в основном оплачивается федеральным правительством. Малой остается и роль местных правительств. Хотя в государственных вузах появились платные места, но их роль пока сводится к обхождению результатов конкурса элементами, мало способными к высшему образованию.

Предлагаемая реформа содержит следующие компоненты: 1) введение индивидуальных счетов для всех студентов государственных высших учебных заведений; 2) отсрочку от выплаты высшего образования для неимущих студентов до окончания вуз'а под субсидируемый, но зависящий от результатов учебы, процент; 3) широкие возможности немонетарной компенсации высшего образования занятиями в сфере national needs и прекрашение субсидирования специальностей, не входящих в реестр "национальных потребностей"; 4) вовлечение частных банков и страховых компаний в оплату высшего образования.

1. Индивидуальные счета
По поступлении в высшее учебное заведение, студент заключает с ним и вновь созданным министерством высшего образования, науки и высоких технологий (см. сноску No. 2) контракт, в ходе выполнения которого он оплачивает расходы на свое высшее образование из специального счета, наподобие широко применяемого "материнского капитала."  На средства счета начисляются проценты ниже рыночных, которые студент обязан оплатить после окончания, но,
в случае оплаты наличными, накапливаются в качестве небольшого капитала. Достижение определенных учебных целей снижает процент. Обладателям именных стипендий на счет поступают средства благотворителя.

2. Отсрочка и компенсация
За полгода до защиты диплома, студент, не оплативший обучение полностью обязан перефинансировать контракт. Лица, не имеющие средств на оплату высшего образования, могут заключить новый контракт. По нему, студентам технических и физико-математических специальностей, образование оплачивается в случае работы на предприятиях военно-промышленного комплекса, учителям и врачам--за работу в удаленных и социально неблагополучных районах. Предлагаемая формула--5% за первые три года, и 17% за последующие пять лет. Студенты лингвистических вузов могут оплатить до 1/4 образования в ходе обучения--например, 12 семестровых курсов из 48 необходимых для завершения высшего образования--изучением редких языков, а студенты творческих вузов--изучением компьютерной графики и гейминга. Субсидирование экономических, юридических и т.п. специальностей не предполагается.

3. Альтернативы
 Лица, желающие получить творческие, финансовые и прочие специальности, не входящие в круг постоянно обновляемых национальных потребностей, могут получить средства на обучение или службой в армии по контракту, или работой на производстве по принципу apprenticeship, наподобие немецкой системы Auszubildungsbetrieb. То есть лицу, пока оно работает на предприятии, хорошо учится и не пьет, предприятие оплачивает примерно 40% стоимости обучения очного студента в семестр. То есть, она/он могут закончить обучение примерно за десять лет вместо четырех не платя за него ни копейки из собственного кармана, или быстрее, в случае побочных выплат. Еще одна возможность--получить значительную часть образования в колледже, с номинальной оплатой. Колледжи--не все, а только избранные, вместо нынешних, прикрепляются к местным вузам, которые контролируют качество части курсов--например, "Введения в математический анализ", которые затем засчитываются в бакалавреат. Средний медицинский персонал, при наличии достаточного усердия, может "заработать" часть общих курсов в местном медицинском институте или на биофаке университета.

4. Аспирантура
Архаичная система кандидатских и докторских--например, в России лучшие клинические врачи должны годами выполнять дилетантские "научные" работы с целью занятия должности главврача--заменяется Единой Докторской Степенью (ЕДС) для ученых/преподавателей вузов, которая присваевается только с успешным окончанием очной аспирантуры, терминальными степенями "Доктор Правоведения" и "Доктор Медицины" для юристов и врачей. Клинические и научные должности в лечебных учреждениях строго разделяются--заработал степень доктора биологии--занимайся научной работой, а не лечи пациентов (см. сноску). Причем, окончание аспирантуры квалифицируется не только защитой диссертации, но и определенными навыками практического преподавания в вузе. При поступлении в зарубежную аспирантуру, лицо должно полностью перефинансировать свое обучение в частном банке на его условиях, могущих включать collateral на российскую недвижимость в случае невыплат после пятилетней отсрочки.

Prisoners of Democracy

   A distinction between "democratic" and "authoritarian" state has lost its significance in the XXI century. Two main characteristics of the dictatorships of old, the control over movement of people and the control over dissemination of information have been obviated by modern technology and lifestyle--only the North Korea and, to a much lesser degree, Cuba and Belarus, retain some degree of information and migration control.
   One of the reasons of democracy's demise in this century is a simple population growth. In mid-XIX century USA, a congressional representative was elected by several thousand voters who received their political information mainly from local broadsheets and the congressman's personal acolytes. Currently, an average member of the US House of Representatives is delegated by approximately 700,000 people who get most of their information from the national media.
    Because of ever-finessed techniques of quantitative analysis and gerrymandering, only ~10% of congressional districts are truly competitive. I am sure that the proportion of truly competitive election in Russia, which is viewed by the US media as epitomizing oppression, is higher. In Upstate New York, not to speak about the "reddest" states, some State Senate districts live under what effectively amounts to one-party system.
     How then one could imagine China ruling its 1,400 million people by a carbon copy of American system? If one imagines ~700 as the limit for a number of representatives of an elected lower house (currently, Chinese legislature has more than ~2,000 largely ceremonial members, for instance, congratulating members of the ruling Politburo on national holidays, similarly to the Bill Frist Senate of the Bush Era), each delegate will represent more than two million people. Hence, under this system, for instance, no UK city other than London would have a unique representative. A mid-size Chinese province would hypothetically send two senators to Beijing, who would be only technically answerable to diverse population larger than Belgium and Holland combined. Such legislature will hardly be different or more democratic in populace's minds than a current European Commission not representing anybody but the American NATO generals and the German bankers.
       With Russia one has another problem--the extremely unequal territorial distribution of the populace. Not only the Russian Federation is the largest, by territory, country in the world, but also most of this territory is empty or uninhabitable. Current Russian Duma member represents ~300,000 people similar to the golden era of American Congress in 1950-60s. Yet, with 300,000 being a census of a small borough in the city of Moscow, in Krasnoyarsk Krai this is the number of the people outside of Krasnoyarsk and its suburbs. They are spread over the territory roughly equal to Western Europe without Scandinavia. Constituencies of these "people's deputies" include miners, fishermen, sailors, workers of giant aluminum smelters, teachers, doctors, religious sectarians living "off the grid" and other people with similarly congruent economic and cultural interests. Obviously, the legislators, no matter, how liberal the electoral law is, and how well it is enforced, would always tend to respond only to concerns of Moscow bankers, at best, and, at worst, an organized crime.
       Not that democracy is flourishing in its traditional centers. In the countries like Sweden, Denmark or Holland, the elections of American President or the German Chancellor are more meaningful in indicating future policy changes than the elections of national "leaders." Even in larger Western countries, such as the UK, defense and intelligence policy is largely out of national control. The famed British Navy simply cannot operate without US communication and reconnaissance satellites, logistical support, airlift and weapons codes. Without them the masterpieces of British engineering, the Astute submarines are just the steel boxes plodding under the waves.
      In Germany, not only national defense but also media establishment labors under a heavy American thumb. Nazi leader of the Deutsche Welle and a son of the notorious war criminal, Peter Limbourg and his Goebbelsian  crew (I do not mince these words lightly), invented two words: rechtspopilist and Der Putinversteher. I.e., if the Euro-Atlanticist (Amer. neocon) media labels you these terms, there is no need for a substantive discussion. Later it moved to America with the term "fake news." It works like that: if you are a German worker upset with high utility prices because of multi-billion euro subsidization of the alternative energy, you are rechtspopulist. If you also question, why, for all its clinging to alternative energy, German Government gives Poland billions in subventions to keep its poor-quality coal mines open, you are also Putinversteher. No debate.
         I do not want to mention Eastern European NATO protectorates, where American generals tell their governments what their foreign policy will be and the German bankers inform them about their domestic policies. The governments of the Eastern European NATO members--with exception of Poland with extremely powerful Polish US lobby in a classic tale of tail wagging the dog and recalcitrant Hungary--only decide such fascinating issues as the color of postal stamps or the contents of textbooks in the public schools.
      This does not have to be understood as the author's rejection of electoral democracy; vice versa, this author is saddened by its demise. But the hard fact is that most modern nations are ruled by unelected oligarchies, either locally procured or prescribed by "international" bodies, such as IMF or NATO.

Methodology of development of science and technology in Russia (in Russian)

      Россия не так страдает от коррупции, как от начальнического "затейничества." Если это преувеличение, то очень небольшое. Руководителями-затейниками были Никита Хрущев, Дмитрий Устинов и  Михаил Горбачев. То есть вместо продуманных решений, осуществляемых после тщательной проработки проблемы экспертами среднего звена, высшие начальники собирают совещание из номенклатурных "аксакалов", которые должны импровизировать решение по манию верховного лица.

    Когда начальство пытается развивать какую-либо область науки и техники, первым делом составляется список перспективных (или провальных) направлений на основании популярных источников, а затем в эти области направляются государственные ресурсы. Никакого серъезного анализа потребностей и возможностей общества при этом не производится. На самом деле выбор приоритетов в первую очередь означает, какими проектами можно пожертвовать, чтобы высвободить ресурсы на перспективные направления. В отличие от США, которые могут позволить себе научно-техническое развитие во всех областях, экономический потенциал России предполагает жесткое рационирование.

      Чтобы позволить хоть какую-нибудь систематизацию этого процесса, автор предлагает следующую схему оценки проектов. Перспективным направлениям присваиваются символические позиции, соответствующие потребностям и возможностям общества в настоящее время. Эти позиции следующие:

1. Наблюдательная. Государственная поддержка сводится к взносу в международные организации, как в случае CERN и ITER. Доморощенные проекты не финансируются.

2. Имитационная. Проекты направлены на более-менее буквальное воспроизведение зарубежных образцов.

3. Догоняющяя. Проекты направлены на обретение научно-технических компетенций передовых государств.

4. Передовая. Проекты предполагают оригинальные исследования и разработки, направленные на соревнование с передовыми странами мира.

5. Лидирующая. Страна является лидером в узкой области и стремится сохранить лидирующее положение.

Заметим, что эта классификация ничего не говорит о глобальной приоритетности тех, или иных направлений. Так, Россия занимает лидирующие позиции в области ядерной энергетики и пилотируемого космоса--направлений, которые скорее соответствуют "переднему краю" 60-х годов. Объем капиталовложений объективно сдвинут к позициям 4 и 5, но организационные мероприятия и венчурные проекты скорее должны концентрироваться на уровнях 2 и 3. В прилагаемой таблице (на английском) приводятся воззрения автора на классификацию основных направлений науки и техники в приложении к современной России.

##	Technology/domain of science	Rating	Notes
1	Nuclear energy	5
2.	Piloted spaceflight	5
3.	Robotic deep space exploration	4	Now hardly #2
4.	Astroparticle physics	4
5.	New materials	4
6.	Robotics and drones	4	Presently, 2
7.	Rare, tropical diseases, non-narcotic anesthesia, veterinary genomics	4	From scratch
8.	Financial technology	4	From scratch
8.	Software/AI (applied)	4
9.	Software/AI (general)	3
10.	Medical devices	3
11.	Computer games and CGI	3
12.	Molecular genomic medications for humans, artificial organs	3	Other than 7
13.	Technologies for Earth/environmental monitoring	3
14.	3D manufacturing	3	From scratch
15.	Precision machine tools	2
16.	Chemical drugs, generics	2
17.	Automobile and peaceful marine technology	2
18.	Equipment for oil and gas production	2
19.	Electronic components	2
20.	Consumer electronics	1
21.	Elementary particle physics with accelerators, accelerator physics and technology	1	Except for free-electron lasers and synchrotron radiation for material science/biology
22.	Plasma physics and fusion	1	Except for space propulsion and nuclear technology for military applications

On Picketty. Piketty, T., Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Belknap, 2014

      Both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of the 2000s were preceded by the period of frenetic economic activity, creating many extremely wealthy people. Yet, their reactions to the situation of mass unemployment and industrial stagnation were diametrically different. In 1929 Joseph Kennedy? said that he would gladly give up half of his fortune to protect another half, obviously, from impending deterioration if the crisis continues. The reaction of the new rich to the very modest steps to deal with the 2007-2008 could be summarized in hedge mogul Shwartzman, who compared the possibility of ending “carried interest” tax exemption for hedge fund managers to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

The growth of inequality in the US is confirmed by all statistical metrics and there is a significant discussion as to what to do with it (or whether it is a new normal). Very thick, 700-pages volume on this subject by Thomas Piketty became a bestseller—a rarity for political economy.

        Yet, there is a surprisingly little discussion of why it is bad. Inequality can be compared with obesity or climate change—when asked what system of organism/society suffers from it—the answer is “all”, so few take it seriously.
       Certainly, there are anecdotal examples of heavily overweight sedentary alcoholics living past ninety and health and fitness jocks croaking at half that age. But, on the average, damage to one’s health from excessive weight is undisputable. Because the discussion of particular damage to society by extreme inequality inevitably runs as the analogue of the above example, I only remind the sticky end to which extremely unequal societies (further EUS) eventually succumbed through human history.

First, it seems that nearly all EUS become excessively militarized. Why the universal result of EUS is militarization is beyond the scope of discussion of my column and is better left to professional historians. Probably, there are many economic and cultural causes working in the same direction. The most obvious is that extreme prosperity enjoyed by the EUS elites attracts outsiders: not always in terms of invasions but also resettlement. Germanic tribes, which terrorized Europe for the next millennium, initially appeared in the Roman Empire as settlers flying from Hun and Avar depredations (don’t tell this to Donald).

        The twentieth century brought with it picture of mass upheavals as workers and peasants marching with rifles under red banners. This picture is outdated, nor was it the prevalent mode of internal/class conflict in human history. Currently, we observe mass migration from the war-torn Middle East to Western Europe. There is also small, but measurable flux of “migrants” from developed countries to the Middle East, to join ISIS and other extremist groups. These volunteers predominantly grew up in conditions of wealthy secular societies, yet they stream to the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia to fan the flames of the civil wars bound to bring more huddled masses to the European shores. Thus, peaceful resettlement and armed uprising walk hand in hand.

“Militarization” should not be understood narrowly as a numerical growth of an army. For instance, European medieval society which replaced exemplary EUS of the Roman Empire was probably, one of the most militarized societies in history, given that most administrative, economic and even some ecclesiastical functions (think of armed monastic orders) were performed by armored cavalrymen. Yet they were puny, not only in absolute numbers but also in proportion to the overall population.

Militarization of the US police does not require special explanation beyond a single word: “Ferguson.” Police imitates military techniques and equipment and eventually begins to treat general population as an occupied enemy to be controlled rather than citizenry whom they must protect.
Militarization of intelligence services requires slightly more comment. Traditionally intelligence operated under makeshift rules but resorted to deadly violence very sparingly. On the contrary, the whole purpose of uniformed military is to kill opponents. However, during the centuries, the armies developed extensive rules and rituals, which are supported by elaborate command structures and draconian punishments for noncompliance. An alternative would be Late-Medieval-Early Modern European warfare or many modern African conflicts. Fictionalized portrayal can be gleaned from the “Game of Thrones.” I.e. these armies were gangs of looters and rapists who occasionally participated in combat. I remind those, who think it is an irrelevant ancient history that the Third Amendment to the US Constitution—part of the school program—is a relic of the jolly times when quartering of own troops was scarcely less a misfortune than a foreign occupation.

Current involvement of CIA in the drone warfare and other military-style special ops completely blurred the distinction between lawless but relatively non-violent professional intelligence and rule-abiding violence by the organized military. Henceforth, I will refer to “the military” as a term not relating exclusively to the uniformed army but also to the whole plethora of paramilitary organizations flourishing on the body of EUS.
At the second stage of unraveling, a captain or general of these armed forces suddenly decides that instead of him serving fat cats, they might be serving him. One helpful hint being provided that in the EUS, the (constantly fighting) military remains the only ladder for social advancement. Napoleonic habit of putting hands behind his tunic, ostensibly to hide his worn gloves in the military school provided him a subtle reminder of his inferior class origins for all his life.

In the modern American society wealth and power became the only criterion of social success. And everyone who is not constantly on the TV screen is a “loser.” It was not always that way. Obviously, in the 60s, A secretive NASA researcher or nuclear physicist possessed higher social prestige than a banker or a stand-up comedian. Moreover, banker's salaries (compared to the rocket scientist and laughable by the modern standards) were considered kind-of compensation considered tedium of the former and exciting character of work of the latter.

In their time and age, Newton and Voltaire were independently wealthy—mostly from market speculations and not from their writings —but Leibnitz, Kant and Mendelsohn, being of modest means-- were nevertheless treated as a minor royalty.  Especially, when material wealth gets intertwined with an elite education—predominantly with the degrees from a top dozen schools in business, law, political sciences or communications—a constantly fighting military provides the only opportunity for the ambitious members of the lower classes to advance.

The third stage of this power play may be different though the not-always-exclusive scenarios below provide some guidance.
• Generals succeed in hanging on to power. Napoleon’s example produced several hundred of his imitators not only in Latin America but also in other parts of the world.

• The populace, usually after a period of anarchy, buoyed by disgruntled soldiery from the lost wars, overthrows the generals and instead declares loyalty to the group of extremist ideologues (Russia—1917-1922, Germany—1918-1933, China—1911-1949). This scenario may yet realize in Iraq and Syria.

• Organized state completely dissolves into sections of the competing armed gangs—a scenario favored by Hollywood anti-utopias. Contemporary examples are Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and large swaths of Pakistan, Southern Sudan and Eritrea.

Now, take your pick.