Gorbachev’s Gamble

Author(s):  
Chris Miller

This chapter discusses the political challenges that Gorbachev faced while devising policy during the late 1980s, and highlights the role played by economic interest groups, including the farm lobby, heavy industries, and the military industrial complex. These lobbies dominated economic policymaking and constrained Gorbachev’s ability to implement his desired policies. The chapter describes the political base of each of the major interest groups, and assesses their goals in shaping economic policymaking. Each of these groups, the chapter notes, had strong economic reasons to oppose Chinese-style reform.

1985 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Baack ◽  
Edward Ray

Despite the attention given by scholars to the military-industrial complex few studies have attempted to pinpoint and explain its origin. In this paper we argue that the coalescing of business, military, and political interest groups in support of a military build-up in the United States during peacetime occurred in the years between the Civil War and World War I. It was during this period that we observe the roots of institutional arrangements between the military and industry for the purpose of large-scale weapons acquisitions.


2019 ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
J.P.S. Uberoi

This chapter continues with the author’s critique of modern Western science. It traces the inherent dualisms of the modernist approach to spheres of thought, nature and society whether they be of the right, left or centre in the political spectrum. The question of dualism and non-dualism is discussed in relation to Marx, Engels, Hegel, Lenin, Goethe, Christianity, Soviet Marxism and Chinese Maoism, and the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe. The final section of the chapter deals with the relation between science and politics outlining the alliance between the science of the expert with the military industrial complex that makes impossible a praxis of Gandhian non-violence, a centrist position that has its reflection in the non-dualist streams of the European underground.


2021 ◽  
pp. 84-99
Author(s):  
Marlene Laruelle

This chapter investigates where a supposed “Russian fascism” can be located, looking at the political niches inside state structures that may nurture such a narrative and the grassroots actors trying to promote different components of the fascist repertoire. It examines how the Putin regime has shown an impressive capacity to adapt to new contexts and take on new challenging geopolitical environments. The chapter then argues that the Putin regime, as an ad hoc construction, regularly purges itself by excluding some of its members while at the same time developing new strategies for co-opting other segments of society, which partly explains its longevity and ability to regularly rebound. It also demonstrates a large ideological plurality, with several ecosystems competing with each other by offering the Presidential Administration new ideological products in the hope of seeing them adopted at a higher level. The chapter also identifies two segments that sometimes play with the fascist repertoire as part of a broader continuum of reactionary ideologies: the military–industrial complex and the Orthodox realm.


Author(s):  
Simon Morgan Wortham

This chapter evaluates the question of the ‘complex’ in a range of scientific, political and psychoanalytic contexts, asking not only where lines of connection and demarcation occur among specific distributions of meaning, value, theory and practice; but also probing the psychoanalytic corpus, notably Freud’s writings on the notion of a ‘complex’, in order to reframe various implications of the idea that this term tends to resist its own utilisation as both an object and form of analysis. This section establishes connections between three sets of theoretical questions: the common practice of describing modernity and its wake in terms of a drive towards increasing complexity; the meaning and cultural legacy of phrases such as ‘military-industrial complex’ and sundry derivations in the political sphere; and the intricacies and ambiguities subtending the term ‘complex’ within psychoanalytic theory. As a concept that Freud both utilised and repudiated, the provocative power of the term ‘complex’ is linked to the way it thwarts various attempts at systemization (providing nonetheless an apparatus of sorts through which contemporary science, Slavoj Žižek, Noam Chomsky, Freud, Eisenhower, and post-war politics can be articulated to one another).


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Irina Orlova ◽  
Artem Sukharev ◽  
Maria Sukhareva ◽  
Mikhail Deikun

The main objective of the article is to substantiate a systematic approach to the introduction of all types of innovations in the development of the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that in the modern world it is especially important to ensure the national security of the country and the defense industry plays a crucial role in this. At the same time, one cannot but note the importance of the defense industry in the production of high-tech civilian products and dual-use products, which enhances the country's competitiveness in the world market. In addition, the relevance of the topic is due to the presence of rather serious problems in the Russian defense industry, which require immediate resolution. The article uses the methodology of structurally functional analysis, the institutional approach and the method of comparative assessments. The authors conclude that technological innovation alone will not be able to achieve strategic results for ensuring national security, only in conjunction with organizational, product, social and marketing innovations, the domestic defense industry is able to solve its tasks.


Cinema’s Military Industrial Complex examines how the American military has used cinema and related visual, sonic, and mobile technologies to further its varied aims. The essays in this book address the way cinema was put to work for purposes of training, orientation, record keeping, internal and external communication, propaganda, research and development, tactical analysis, surveillance, physical and mental health, recreation, and morale. The contributors examine the technologies and types of films that were produced and used in collaboration among the military, film industry, and technology manufacturers. The essays also explore the goals of the American state, which deployed the military and its unique modes of filmmaking, film exhibition, and film viewing to various ends. Together, the essays reveal the military’s deep investment in cinema, which began around World War I, expanded during World War II, continued during the Cold War (including wars in Korea and Vietnam), and still continues in the ongoing War on Terror.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 2103-2123
Author(s):  
V.L. Gladyshevskii ◽  
E.V. Gorgola ◽  
D.V. Khudyakov

Subject. In the twentieth century, the most developed countries formed a permanent military economy represented by military-industrial complexes, which began to perform almost a system-forming role in national economies, acting as the basis for ensuring national security, and being an independent military and political force. The United States is pursuing a pronounced militaristic policy, has almost begun to unleash a new "cold war" against Russia and to unwind the arms race, on the one hand, trying to exhaust the enemy's economy, on the other hand, to reindustrialize its own economy, relying on the military-industrial complex. Objectives. We examine the evolution, main features and operational distinctions of the military-industrial complex of the United States and that of the Russian Federation, revealing sources of their military-technological and military-economic advancement in comparison with other countries. Methods. The study uses military-economic analysis, scientific and methodological apparatus of modern institutionalism. Results. Regulating the national economy and constant monitoring of budget financing contribute to the rise of military production, especially in the context of austerity and crisis phenomena, which, in particular, justifies the irrelevance of institutionalists' conclusions about increasing transaction costs and intensifying centralization in the industrial production management with respect to to the military-industrial complex. Conclusions. Proving to be much more efficient, the domestic military-industrial complex, without having such access to finance as the U.S. military monopolies, should certainly evolve and progress, strengthening the coordination, manageability, planning, maximum cost reduction, increasing labor productivity, and implementing an internal quality system with the active involvement of the State and its resources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document