As a leading figure in the shaping of the Stalinist state, Lazar Kaganovich has, not without cause, had a bad press. He has been treated as the bête noir of the Stalin era, as a kind of ogre; vilified by Trotsky, depicted as a Stalinist sycophant by Khrushchev, denounced by delegates to the XXI Party Congress as one of the architects of the Great Terror. In the post-Soviet Russia, he was characterised as the ambitious, self-hating Jew who showed little loyalty to his fellow compatriots. He was heavily implicated in many of the worst of Stalin's crimes and evokes little sympathy. At the same time, the works dealing with his life and career are often oversimplified, producing a caricature with little subtlety or nuance. This work attempts to draw a fuller picture of Kaganovich as a political actor, to understand his contribution to the creation of the Stalinist system. But the study is above all about the nature of the inner dynamics of the ruling group, and of its transformation over time. Stalin cannot be understood without understanding the role of his deputies, while the role of his deputies cannot be understood without understanding Stalin.

The Stalinist leadership had no figures of standing comparable to Trotsky or Bukharin under Lenin. Its intellectual formation was much narrower, less cosmopolitan, and more provincial. Many had only limited formal education and were essentially self-educated. Kaganovich has no claim to be considered an intellectual or theoretician.

This chapter examines whether human capital, as evidenced by the availability of skilled workers, constrains growth in Indonesia. The chapter gives an overview of the skills level of the workforce using educational attainment as a proxy. Although the chapter notes an overall improvement in the skills level of young Indonesian workers (age 15–24) in recent years, Indonesia lags behind regional comparators. Though investment climate surveys do not detect human capital as a hindrance to business, labor market indicators suggest that a skills shortage has been affecting Indonesia's competitiveness in the region. The judgement as to whether the available human capital constitutes a constraint to growth depends on development strategies and blueprints for the growth of Indonesia's industry. With the launch of the master plan for six economic corridors, the country is aiming at a medium- and long-term growth scenario of moving up the production ladder from light industry and natural resources exploitation to a more sophisticated manufacturing production and knowledge-based economy. Under this scenario, human capital is likely to constitute a constraint to growth; therefore, improving the access to and quality of secondary and tertiary education could help achieve the growth scenario.

Education and Skills Level of the Workforce

Overall, the educational attainment of Indonesian workers has been improving remarkably in recent years (World Bank 2010). The share of workers with tertiary education and above has increased, with the trend most pronounced among women (Table 8.1).

Since postmodernism claims to be the new radicalism that is believed to have unseated Marxism in the last two decades, a kind of thought that began to gain ground since the 1980s, and as many advocates of Marxism consider postmodernism as its new adversary, at times I feel scared at the prospect of Marxists and postmodernists almost coming to blows! With this preliminary remark, I would now try to take a look at the subject of this lecture by focusing on the following: (a) the background of postmodernism; (b) the postmodern framework and its implications for Marxism; (c) the Marxist response to the claims postmodernism; (d) to consider the question whether the two perspectives are negotiable.

Although as a term postmodernism is associated with Jean Francois Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition (1984), where he situates postmodernism as a critique of metanarrative/grand narrative which has been modernity's standardized understanding of history and civilization, basically it originated as a critique of universalization of the European sense of rationality, which legitimized Europe's claim to domination of the world in the name of modernity. It emerged as a critique of how the inexorable discourse of modernity in the name of reason and universality enslaved and disciplined the individual by excluding all options of freedom, choice and autonomy. Philosophically speaking, it is a standard practice to trace the roots of postmodernism to Nietzsche's ideas of relativism and perspectivism, that is, his denouncement of the Hegelian legacy which made absolute of the notions of universality, essentialism and totality.

In 1983 the death centenary programmes of Karl Marx took place in almost every part of the globe and the scale was truly quite impressive. However, after about two decades, when the world will have the opportunity to observe the 120th death anniversary of the same man, in the year 2003, it will not be surprising if it is found that the occasion goes virtually unnoticed. This can certainly be explained as the effect of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the end of the Cold War, the retreat of the Left and the enormous tilt of the global balance of power in favour of the kind of aggressive capitalism represented by the United States. The neo-liberals will point to these developments of the last decade of the twentieth century and argue that Marx is then finally dead, as his thoughts are out of tune with modernity. The new radicalism, on the other hand, represented for instance by postmodernism, would argue that Marxism today has no longer any major taker in the Left camp, as it has come to be recognized philosophically as an integral component of western modernity. As a result, it fails to present itself as any real critique of, and alternative to, the modernity of capitalism.

The neo-liberal argument is not very new. It has gained ground especially after the economic failure of socialism.

Joe May's Asphalt (1929) opens with a scene of several men solidifying the asphalt on newly built streets with large handheld objects. Asphalt as a foundation of the city seems to promise not only swifter movement and a level ground for the passage of horse carriages, cars and pedestrians, but also appears to hint at the way in which the progressive urbanisation shapes German culture and becomes an increasingly prominent aspect of Weimar cinema. The next few scenes focus on the bustling life of the city. May intersperses rapidly moving cars and low angle shots capturing feet of the crowds as they cross streets and push through the traffic with images of people pausing fascinated in front of store windows, watching live models pulling on stockings.

The Nineteenth Century of James T. Knowles, once of the Contemporary Review, was an agora for deliberative citizens. Among its highlights were studies of French, German, Turkish, Egyptian, and American journalism.

1. Grant Duff, M. E. “Russia.” 1 (1877): 72–96, 298–314.

Aside on Michael Katkoff, editor of the Moscow Gazette.

2. Ralston, W. R. S. “Russian Revolutionary Literature.” 1 (1877): 397–416.

Alluded to the Polar Star, Kolokol, which first circulated in manuscript, and St. Petersburg's Vyestnik Evropy, “one of the best periodicals of which any country can boast.”

3. Spedding, James. “Teaching to Read.” 1 (1877): 637–45.

Assured that in the Phonetic News “all the proper names were carefully spelt.”

4. Greg, W. R. “Harriet Martineau.” 2 (1877): 97–112.

Stated that Martineau the journalist never wrote for fame or wealth and never reconsidered her opinions.

5. Vogel, Julius. “Cheap Telegrams.” 2 (1877): 783–95.

Coupled telegraphic information in the press and education of the public. Cheap telegraphy delivered to local gazettes British political speeches and foreign news, which the “chief newspapers” and Reuter's collected at “vast expense.”

6. Arnold, Matthew. “A Guide to English Literature.” 2 (1877): 843–53.

Review of Stopford Brooke's Primer of English Literature mentioned The Times, Morning Chronicle, Morning Post, Morning Herald, Edinburgh Review, Quarterly Review, and Blackwood's Magazine.

7. Chesney, George Tomkyns. “The Value of India to England.” 3 (1878): 227–38.

Snapped that educated Indians who could not secure government jobs published “seditious newspapers…which the Government tolerates with scornful yet lazy indifference.”

Without a commitment to party or religion, the Fortnightly revealed journalism's breadth. Entries spanned such diverse subjects as British foreign correspondence; imperial, European, and American newspapers; and the women's press in and out of the kingdom.

1. Editor [G. H. Lewes]. “Robert Buchanan.” 1 (1865): 443–58.

Noted that book reviews were often hastily done.

2. Trollope, Anthony. “On Anonymous Literature.” 1 (1865): 491–98.

Commended French journalistic signature because it created professionals with honor. Britain's anonymity suited a newspaper's “prevailing spirit” on politics, but signing other articles would catalyze more careful writing and eliminate the “eulogistic” writing typical of periodical criticism.

3. Gurney, Archer. “France as It Is.” 1 (1865): 721–32.

Flagged French “seizure of English papers,” among them the “respectable Morning Herald”; Charles de Remusat and other admirable writers in the Revue des Deux Mondes; and the political alignment of Paris newspapers.

4. Pelly, Lewis. “British India.” 2 (1865): 31–42.

Spelled out that the British in India once read only the Army List, Gazette, and “a local paper.”

5. Editor [G. H. Lewes]. “Criticism in Relation to Novels.” 3 (1865–66): 352–61.

Fretted that “[e]ven in the best journals,” criticism of novels was too laudatory. The press did not judge novels as literature but by the “ordinary canons which would be applied to a history, an article, or a pamphlet.”

6. Editor [G. H. Lewes]. “Causeries.” 4 (1866): 503–09.

Disdained anonymous criticism because responsibility for it might attach to any writer of the journal where it appeared.

True to its title, the Foreign Quarterly, later affiliated with the Westminster Review, focused on the Continental press.

1. [Gillies, R. P.]. “Schubert's Travels in Sweden, Etc.” 1 (1827): 189–214.

Review of Friedrich Schubert's book documented a Swedish “war of periodical writers” around 1800 between the Literary and Theatrical Journal and the Lyceum, Polypheme, Aurora, and Phosphorus. Among other Swedish serials were Iduna on history and Svea, a miscellany. Two Privy Councilors edited periodicals.

2. [Gillies, R. P.]. “The German Pocket-Books for 1828.” 1 (1827): 641–46.

Examined 15 German annuals while waiting for others, apparently with better articles, to arrive.

3. [Vieusseux, André]. “Italian Literature of the Eighteenth Century.” 2 (1828): 621–61.

Reported that the “establishment of periodical publications or journals in Italy dates from the seventeenth century.” The first was in Rome (1668) followed by a literary journal in Parma (1686) and the Gallery of Minerva in Venice (1696). In the eighteenth century, the Journal of Letters, among others, circulated in Venice (1710) and the Café, conducted by Pietro Allessandro Verri, in Milan.

4. [Rumy, K. G.]. “Language and Literature of the Magyars.” 3 (1828–29): 28–76.

Asserted that the “most distinguished” Magyar periodicals were the Transylvanian Museum, edited by Gabriel Döbrentei, Life and Literature, and the Scientific Magazine. Also worthwhile were the Magyar Museum of Kasinczy Szabó, the Universal Magazine, Iris, Orpheus, and Uranus. Most, with 200–800 subscribers, had little valuable criticism because modest editors were afraid of offending authors.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party, popularly known as the Communist Manifesto, was published in 1848 as the programmatic document of the Communist League and has since then come to occupy a permanent place in the annals of revolutionary literature. A very slim book, the Manifesto, which is essentially theoretical in orientation, is an explosive text that addresses questions which in one sense open up new frontiers for posterity. In another sense it is an exercise in the rhetoric of revolution which drives the proletariat into action against its oppressors with the battle cry on its lips: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” It is precisely such presentation of extremely compressed theoretical formulations couched in a style and language which is at places almost poetic that makes the reading of the Manifesto as a text apparently easy but essentially difficult. The very famous opening sentence of the book, “A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism,” sets the mood, which is at once passionate and thoughtful, reminding one of the opening bars of the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Reflecting on such a structurally complex text, 150 years after its publication, is not understandably an easy task. Yet the encounter with this book on the threshold of a new century, when the world looks vastly different from the time of the Manifesto, generates a good number of interesting questions which may prove to be useful for a deeper understanding of the text.

Indonesia's investment level was 30%–32% of gross domestic product (GDP) during 1990–1997 but the level plummeted to 11% of GDP in 1999 following the Asian financial crisis. The investment level has since recovered somewhat and was about 25% of GDP in 2007 and 2008 (Figure 3.1). However, as in the case of GDP growth, the recovery fell well short of the level that prevailed prior to the crisis. Moreover, it does not compare favorably with the region's faster growing economies—e.g., Viet Nam's 41.1% of GDP and Thailand's 28.8% in 2008.

Attaining the pre-crisis pace of GDP growth may not be possible unless investment is revived to that period's level. The private sector will need to be the driver of growth in the medium to long term. Public investment will also need to be boosted to address constraints related to the availability, reliability, and efficiency of infrastructure, and to meet the human capital needs. This chapter looks at the factors that may be constraining the Indonesian economy from attaining its pre-crisis levels of investment and growth. Specifically, the chapter asks if Indonesia's investment and growth are being constrained by high cost of finance, low social return to investment, and/or low appropriability of that return.

Cost of Finance

A comparison with other major economies in Southeast Asia suggests that Indonesia's domestic real interest rate is relatively high. Since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Indonesia's real lending rate has remained higher than the rates of the region's other major economies except during the period of high inflation from late 2005 through early 2006.

Stalin died on 5 March 1953. The ensuing succession struggle was bound up with questions of policy and ideology, and with questions regarding the restructuring the party-state and reordering state–societal relations as part of the general issue of coping with dismantling Stalin's tyrannical regime. The process of ‘de-Stalinization’ that ensued represented represented an attempt, within strictly controlled limits, to come to terms with the legacy of the Stalin era. In this power struggle, Molotov and Kaganovich, the leading figures of the Stalinist old guard, sought to re-establish their authority. But the reappraisal of the Stalin era posed serious dangers for them, which they were slow to recognize. The vozhd”s despotic rule, the regime of terror, the Gulag, all that had been considered necessary to the survival of the state were now to be reinterpreted as an incubus that had inhibited the state's development and had imposed a crippling cost on society. The developmental priorities of the regime after 1953 were driven by the task of dismantling the Stalinist regime, reorientating the state's relationship with society, and shifting the economic priorities of the regime to take greater account of consumer expectations.

Stalin's death remains shrouded in mystery. Molotov and Khrushchev both later hinted that his death was not natural. Molotov reports that Beria even claimed responsibility for the death, asserting that he had saved his colleagues by his action.

Richard Bentley founded Bentley's Quarterly, which touched on fiction in British serials and restrictions on the French press.

1. [Mozley, Anne]. “Adam Bede and Recent Novels.” 1 (1859): 433–72. Alluded to the opportunity to publish novels in “a popular periodical.”

2. [Austin, Sarah]. “France.” 1 (1859): 508–49.

Called the press of the Second Empire “crushed and fettered.”

The life and career of Lazar Kaganovich was crucially shaped by his relationship with Stalin. He was Stalin's deputy for a period and most of his life was lived in his shadow. As a key member of the leading group he, alongside Stalin, contributed more than any other individual to shaping the regime in its formative years. He was an executive who was closely involved in designing and implementing the regime's developmental programme. He was an administrator and practical problem solver who was required to deal with planners, managers and engineers. His range of experience, and accomplishments – agricultural policy, urban development, railway management, industrial administration – was far greater than any of Stalin's other deputies. In this, he showed an ability to be guided both by ideological demands and more pragmatic, practical considerations. His long-term survival depended on his ability to not only make himself indispensable to Stalin, but also to deliver results as an executive charged with key tasks in implementing the regime's policies.

Kaganovich was one of the proletarian, political activists who made his mark before 1917 as a trade unionist. In 1917 he was drawn into the Bolshevik Military Organization and was one of that legion of political leaders who made his career as a political commissar during the Civil War. He possessed great intellectual self-confidence. A formative stage in his career was his role in enforcing the Red Terror in Nizhnyi Novgorod and his role in establishing Soviet power in Voronezh and Tashkent.

The Contemporary, started by Alexander Strahan also of Good Words, circulated pivotal articles on the profession of journalism and the anonymity of journalists. Its most famous columns, on press power, came from W. T. Stead's pen.

1. Kinnear, J. Boyd. “Anonymous Journalism.” 5 (1867): 324–39.

Confirmed that “[j]ournalism has gained a position so important and wields now a power so immense that an examination of the soundness of the principles on which it is conducted becomes a matter of urgent necessity. It represents the real thinking part of the nation.” If journalism was “to inform, to advise, and to direct,” it could not be anonymous without having its honesty and trustworthiness questioned. Newspapers were no longer advocates but judges who spoke in “authoritative” and “impartial” language. Yet anonymity allowed them to misrepresent, garble, and even falsify news without taking responsibility. A paper expressed an editor's ideas in a leader, so there was no need for secrecy. Political articles, criticism, and commentaries on finance and foreign policy should be signed to facilitate fair discussion and rewarded for “excellence and high principle.” Opposition to signature rested on habit, insecurity, and the avarice of owners unwilling to pay for merit. The French mandated signature as an instrument of official control; the British should promote voluntary signing monitored by public opinion. Aside that censorship kept the French press from being worse than it was.