Kommersant Swallowed Whole

Kasyanov actually had an option to implement all those things when he “rulil” the country. Somehow his enthusiasm for all things democratic and clean rings hollow now. Apparently, given the sub-zero ratings of his party that’s the view of most of his compatriots.

In my reading of Kommersant — it is just as biased as Moscow Times, and Moscow Times is crap. Is there a difference if there is a shift in bias? Not in principle, it is still a bias.

BIG BLACK:

While referring to the Moscow Times and Kommersant as “crap” despite their being the two most well-respected sources of information about Russia in the eyes of those outside the country, you betray yourself as a crude Neo-Soviet stooge indulging in propaganda. Noticably, you don’t have the courage to name any source of information coming out of Russia which is NOT “crap” so that your views can be held up to public scrutiny (and ridiculed). Similarly, while you attack Kasyanov, you don’t name a single person who you think has a more reliable commitment to “clean” government. Perhaps you “think” the president of the country, a proud KGB spy, does?

If the Moscow Times is “biased” and therefore “crap” because it regularly runs editorials criticizing the Putin administration, then the New York Times is “biased” and therefore “crap” because it even more regularly runs editorials criticizing the Bush administration.

The MT regularly runs op-ed columns by Russophiles defending Russia and the Kremlin, and until recently it ran a column by Chris Floyd (truly “crap” if there ever was any) mercileslly attacking all things American. The MT also runs stories that could get its reporters shot, and your failure to recognize their courage in the face of rising dictatorship in Russia is a classic example of Neo-Soviet cowardice and duplicity. The paper has every right to express concern over the possiblity that, quite likely, it will be next now that Kommersant has been destroyed by the Kremlin.

Basically, your comments seek to rationalize the destruction of what is recognized around the world as one of the most important sources of accurate information about Russia, doing so in the classic style of Neo-Soviet propaganda. In my reading, your comment is as biased as you accuse Kommersant of being, and it is self-destructive crap.

SEAN:

Great article!

What you leave unaddressed is how the world should respond to this outrage. What if the Moscow Times is next? Do you agree now that Russia is for all practical purposes the Neo-Soviet Union? What is the best way for the world to show its opposition to this shockingly bold Neo-Soviet move by the Kremlin?

Could Usmanov be shooting for something bigger for himself – on his own or with Medvedev? With Putin posed to democratically appoint Medvedev as president, could it be the forming of the new ruling clique? “You want to be a partner with us, bring something politically valuable to the table.”

LR: I didn’t say Kommersant was crap, I reserved that for MT, so very few tears will be shed in the case of the ownership change of the latter. What I said was that Kommersant is just one of the many “biased” sources and that I wouldn’t hold it up as a beacon of objectivity in Russia’s coverage. (As an aside: to me, what Chris Floyd writes reads a little nutty, and I suspect that MT simply runs his jabs to pretend that it is objective and has space on its pages for all views).

Arguably, Kommersant was the best newspaper when I was reading it in their first few years (in original and witnessing events around me). Then on a trip home (ca. 1997-98), I picked up a copy in a metro and had to discard it very disappointed – there was some mix of mostly irrelevant economic/market analysis articles with not a hint of the real problems the country was having – ah, that’s right everything was just fine from Mr.B (and LR’s) perspective.

LR, I also have to point out that somehow you naively think that blogs are media of scholastic discourse. I hate to break it to you, but neither they, nor the comments they carry pretend to be objective or carry any weight as scholarly pieces, so your insistence on evidence/completeness is naïve.

“Similarly, while you attack Kasyanov, you don’t name a single person who you think has a more reliable commitment to “clean” government. Perhaps you “think” the president of the country, a proud KGB spy, does?”

Well, I should answer with the words of Sobchak to Ligachev, “Unlike you, sir, I am not trying to get elected to run the country”. I don’t have to suggest solutions/persons, but merely pointed out that the king has no clothes. The absence of qualified people (with proclaimed allegiances to your liking) doesn’t make Mr. Kasyanov “the savior” (i.e. competent or qualified). He will remain in sub-zero ratings until and unless he chooses to represent the interests of his people and not those of other countries (the low ratings of this well-known persona is the best evidence he doesn’t know what the majority wants – or does not want to represent their will).

On a broader issues of the K. sale: discarding the irrelevant noise about Kremlin stifling the media, the business interests apparently took precedence over the press freedom and democracy promotion. Turning a little profit from a hefty $300M deal was more important that to keep ownership in the hands of the democracy fighter Mr.B and Co., or choosing an owner with better ”democratic credentials”. If for democracy sake K ownership matters so much those who complain should either come up with $300M or shut up.

I’m not too concerned about media outlets having a bias. Many very good news sources have biases but still do excellent reporting: the Economist, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, London Guardian, Haaretz, Financial Times, etc. I would include Kommersant in that list (I wouldn’t include the Moscow Times in the ranks of the some of the world’s best newspapers). All of these publications frustrate my political sensibilities at times, but in my opinion that is what they are supposed to do. It has become cliché to lob accusations of bias to discredit a newspaper’s value. Though I admit that I don’t have the perspective Big Black has since I haven’t been reading the paper in the 1990s.

That said, whether one likes Kommersant or not, I think we have to recognize the dearth of independent, well reported, and critical media in Russia. But this isn’t just a Russia problem, it is a global problem. And Kim this is why I still don’t accept your categorization of “neo-Soviet”. The method used in Russia to control media may be more heavy handed, (and despite my concerns and pessimism over Kommersant’s future, I think we still have to wait and see what will happen,) the results are the same: more and more media is subject to manipulation, state or corporate propaganda, and/or tied to state/corporate economic and political interests. Established media outlets the world over are becoming less critical and their reporting more sloppy. A lot of this has to do with the nature of the media business itself. Mass communication has made it more difficult to dig up a well researched and documented story without getting scooped. I was reminded of this while watching All the President’s Men the other day. Technology has increased the cacophony of voices (and the blogging phenomena is a good example of this); voices that frankly don’t have a clue what they are talking about (and one can include myself in this if they feel the need). One can simply point to the number of pundits who give analysis of the Middle East without even knowing the damn languages. Also there seems to be a growing distrust and cynicism in media as the “watchdog of government”. Now media is more about profits than about reporting good solid information. Its civic role has diminished over the last 20 years around the world, though in varying degrees depending on the place. I think it is important to notice that Usmanov’s explanation for buying Kommersant was because it was a sound investment.

Still the sale of Kommersant should be put in perspective. I don’t think Kommersant has much influence among the Russian public. I rarely see people reading it on the street. I assume that the Russian business and intellectual elite and foreigners mostly read it. I have no idea what their print circulation is. Still the paper is profitable, (and the fact that it was purchased $100 million over its supposed market value points to a future of increased profits) but it is a small operation. $70 million in assets and $15 million in profit is frankly small economic potatoes. On an economic scale and influence the purchase on Kommersant is not like that of NTV.

This is not to say that the paper lacks influence. As an opposition paper it does good economic and political reporting. Much better than the yellow journalism of Novaya gazeta. And much more interesting that the Moscow Times (though the latter’s reporting on Russian culture is very good.) In fact besides opinions and commentary, MT does very little investigative reporting. Most of its articles can be found elsewhere, and often with more substance. And because it publishes in English only (unlike the often more interesting Moscow News) its audience in Russia is limited.

All of this said, I think Cyrill’s comment is worth pondering. Kommersant could very well be part of Usmanov’s own maneuvering rather than at the Kremlin’s behest. I think we shouldn’t forget that people like Usmanov have their own interests which could be independent of the Kremlin. Like most capitalist societies, Russia is somewhere between a plutocracy and kleptocracy. Its ruling class is far from united (i.e. Yukos, Berezovsky et al.) and ruling factions position themselves both politically and economically to best maintain their influence. Since the question of Russia next President is still unresolved, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more such maneuvering by the economic and political elite.

Sean, I would disagree with you on Russia being a capitalist society. At the best it is very early capitalism. A similar capitalism that Marx saw and rebelled against, nor recognizing that he was looking at the last stage of feudalism. Until land (and I do not mean apartments or residential villas) is privatized we can not seriously talk about capitalism in Russia.

That is why I am not very fond of LR’s “neo-Soviet” moniker. I think that neo-feudal would be broader, but it is really splitting hairs since communism as it was practiced in the USSR was no different from feudalism. Including serfdom and nobility (the Party)

BIG BLACK: Nobody is talking about whether Kommersant is a good or bad newspaper. The question is whether it is the BEST AVAILABLE critical information about the Putin administration. If it is, then its loss is a disaster for Russia, and not even you challenge this. You don’t name a single source of information that is better than Kommersant in this regard. Granted, everything in Russia is a total “koshmar” right now, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still separate the wheat from the chaff, and the same goes for politicians. If you can’t suggest better alternatives, then you shouldn’t attack the ones that exist or else you are part of the problem. You are only helping the forces of evil by rationalizing their actions.

SEAN: I find your other comments extremely frustrating. You seem to assiduously avoid answering the only question that counts, which is how the world can respond to the demise of Kommersant. You know as well as I do that this paper is universally recognized as the best Russian source of information about Russia and it is being killed off. Chto delat????

When the Russian government crushed the TV stations, people said “well, it doesn’t matter, there are still lots of free-speaking newspapers.” Now that it has crushed the leading free-speaking newspaper, they say that crushing newspapers doesn’t matter because they have tiny circulations and people get most of their news from TV. No wonder it’s so easy for dicators to come to power!

You cannot possibly be seriously suggesting that TV news or print media in the U.S. and Europe is subject to a similar amount of government control to the situation in Russia. What’s more, even if it were, neither the U.S. nor Europe are governed by proud KGB spies and neither is suffering from the plethora of maladies that afflicts Russia.

Cyrill is quite correct in saying that the presence of “ideology” in the USSR was a total sham, nobody believed it, and what was really happening was feudalism, the same as what is happening today. A rose by any other name! I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to point out any substantive differences in Russia today and the USSR; differences are only questions of image and style, and that is why the term “Neo-Soviet” is exactly apt. The “neo” part clearly implies that there are SOME differences, “new and improved,” but at root we have exactly the same kind of society that we had in the USSR, which merely meant a modernized monarchy. Kleptocracy? Are you saying the USSR WASN’T a kleptocracy? Come now! Plutocracy? What do you call the politburo and the communist elites, if not the wealthy?

I can’t believe you seriously think that Russians believed in and adhered to principles of communism under the USSR. The only difference between monarchist Russia and Soviet Russia was WHO had the wealth, a different class of oligarchs, and the EXACT SAME THING is the case right now.

In other words, if there is any inaccuracy in the term “neo-Soviet” it is simply that the USSR was the “neo-Soviet” and Putin’s Russia is “neo-neo-Soviet.” This term is readily accessible to the minds of most people, far more so than “kleptocracy” or “plutocracy” and it is a basically accurate description of life in Putin’s Russia.

Can’t we move on from sematics to politics before every last Russian disappears from the face of the earth? Or are you really an anthropologist at heart?

Another good article, Sean — they are getting better and better these days so your blog must be on its way to become the best Russia blog out there. We’ll see what happens to Kommersant but the name alone, “Usmanov,” conjures up an unpleasant image — a steadfast associate of Gazprom and a sleazy oriental “biznesmen” — bad omens for the paper.

I have one major objection, though it does not apply to current affairs. You apply the labels, “Westernizer” and “Slavophile”, in a very liberal fashion. That would be fine if you specified that the early Slavophiles, such as Khomiakov, were quite different from your stereotypical image. They admired the West’s past (“The land of holy miracles,” — Khomiakov) but thought that the West lost its way at some point, so that Russia would do well not to blindly emulate it. Khomiakov stood for emancipation of the serfs and local self-government among other things. Let’s not forget that Herzen had lots of respect for Khomiakov, and Berdyaev — a zapadnik if there was one — penned a most sympathetic account of Khomiakov’s life and thought. Also recall Khomiakov’s Iranian/Kushite opposition and his Tory-style Anglophily (see Zen’kovsky).

If Nicholas I tolerated the Slavophiles, it was primarily because they were little more than a Moscow debating club. If Nicholas I was a Slavophile in the original sense, why could not Khomiakov publish The Church Is One in Russia (it first appeared in Berlin, in French, in 1867)? The Slavophily of Nicholas I, if detectable, would be that of the second- and third-generation Slavophiles (like Danilevsky and Dostoevsky), whose ideology was a much-vulgarized version, even a caricature of Khomiakov et al. I would call this ideology imperial.
Note also that “Westernizer” is a mistranslation of zapadnik. The Russian word does not mean one intent to Westernize Russia, rather one fond of, or sympathetic with, or obsessed with the West, or a student of the West. “Westernizers” did not all think that Russia should be forced to replicated the West’s way; rather, they thought that history would make Russia follow the same path, sooner or later. In this sense, Chaadaev was not a Westernizer.

LR: Since your travel to Russia happened apparently in the post-USSR days, I can point out one major difference you couldn’t detect (between USSR and today’s Russia) — freedom! You equate it (as many in the West do) with democracy, but they are hardly the same thing. You apparently couldn’t tell the difference b/c you didn’t have a taste what it is like without one.

As for the “Chto delat’?”, my advise still stands: come up with $300M…

BIG BLACK: Well, I was there for a while under Gorby but I guess that doesn’t count. But a girl can read, can’t she?

Actually, I was talking to Sean about Chto Delat, I do commend you for trying to make a suggestion. But do you seriously think that the Kremlin would let a consortium of outsiders take over and run Kommersant? Frankly, I’m amazed that the Moscow Times has lasted as long as it has, to me it clearly seems its days are numbered and when the Kremlin finally moves against it that will be the knell of doom for Russia as we know it.

And I couldn’t disagree more strongly that Russians are more free now than in the USSR. If anything I believe they are less free now, because they are “freely” voting for the KGB rather than having it imposed upon them. That implies that their ability to think has been completely usurped and vanished. At least in the USSR we had SAMIZDAT and heroes like Solzhenitisyn. Now we have only craven cowards as far as they eye can see. Above all, Russians are still enslaved by inefficiency and poverty, as much as they have ever been. Sure, there’s a small group of rich folks, but is Khodorkovsky free?

La Russophobe thinks not.

SEAN & CYRILL: How can you guys possibly read a story like this one and still contend that Russia is not “neo-Soviet” or that this term is misleading? How much more Neo-Soviet can you get?

The article begins:

“India is a continent, the oceans are infested with squid that stretch 20 meters, and the human soul is known to leave the body during sleep. These are just a few of the many, many errors found in grade-school textbooks across the country. Now, the state is returning to its old Soviet ways to cleanse textbooks of obvious and embarrassing mistakes, although some educators wonder what kind of cleansing is taking place. Last year, a new review process was adopted. A lot of work remains: In 2006, just 18 percent of the textbooks reviewed passed muster.”

Sean must be particuarly offended by this classic Soviet activity as an educator and writer of books.

There is a lot to respond to so forgive me if I don’t address everything. First, let me say thanks to Alexei for his kind compliment. It is my hope that my thoughts on Russia are intellectually stimulating even when there are disagreements. The readership of SRB is growing and I hope that continues.

I don’t agree with Cyrill’s characterization of Russia as “very early capitalism” or feudal. First, such a characterization is ahistorical and suggests that Russia has not changed in 200 years. Nor would I say that the Soviet system was feudal or neo-feudal. Saying that collectivization represented a “second serfdom” is more of a moral condemnation than illuminating what life on the collective farm was like. Second, the aesthetics of Russian capitalism is nothing close to that described by Marx and Engels descriptions. Maybe in the 1890s or even in the 1930s it was, but not now. Russia is an industrialized country that is part of a global capitalist system that is certainly not uniform but capitalist nonetheless. It has all the hallmarks of capitalist economic systems: commodity production/consumption, private property, division of labor, free labor, etc. To call Russia feudal is to completely misinterpret its current economic structure. Sure Russia is not capitalist like the United States or Britain, but most capitalist countries in the world aren’t. Whether one accepts it or not Russia belongs to really existing capitalism and should not be measured against some utopian ideal.

Nor is it is fruitful to label Russia “neo-Soviet.” Yes the Russian state engages in police repression (though by no means systematic), silences dissent, controls the media, and has curtailed democratic rights. But there are a lot of states that exist in the present that do the same. Much of what made the Soviet Union soviet is now gone. And yes Russians do enjoy much more freedom than they did 15 years ago. Yet I think that to understand the current state of Russia is to position it within the global context in which it exists. Here you will find that many of the problems Russia currently faces are not particular to it alone.

My statements that most capitalist states are somewhere between plutocracies and kleptocracies had no reference to the Soviet system. I don’t deny that the Soviet system was similar in this respect. So I don’t know where that came from.

On whether I am merely an “anthropologist”, well, I don’t see anything negative in the label. I prefer historian but say what you will. As I’ve found from participating in American radical politics for over 10 years, solutions are easy to conceive, but hard to realize. As for solutions, I defer to my Russian comrades. After all, they live there and have to live the effects of both silence and fighting for change. For now I choose to remain the anthropologist and provide people with some interpretation of the complexities that are Russia. Following Marx’s dictum, I reserve my political activism for toppling my own ruling class.

Finally, on Alexei’s objection to my use of Slavophiles and Westerners, I admit that my usage is very liberal. I appreciate his correction. I am far from an expert in Russian intellectual movements and my knowledge is a bit above textbook. However, I did not mean to suggest that the Westerners wanted to copy the West. I agree with Alexei that they were sympathetic to the West rather than wanting make Russia a mimic of the West.

The presence of errors in Russia’s textbooks is disconcerting but I see it more as academic and editorial laziness rather than a concerted effort by the State. This is shown by the fact that state institutions are source for revealing the errors. The article contradicts itself by saying that this is a return to the old Soviet ways and that there is no evidence that errors are made by the state. Which is it and what do we make of the statement, “Problems like this were largely absent in times past”?

Sean, of the four hallmarks of capitalism you mention — commodity production/consumption, private property, division of labor and free labor — I fully accept the first and the third. Private property is still not quite private, and that applies not only to production assets of national importance but to residential land and housing — remember the recent standoff in Butovo (IIRC)? Labor is technically free, but labor mobility within the country is limited. Russians associate feudalism with serfdom, for which the Russian word is ?????????? ????? — that is, peasants’ forcible attachment to the land. (Even after 1861, the peasant commune could prevent members from moving out — until Stolypin changed that.) This involuntary attachment reemerged, in a different way, in Soviet collective farms — at least until Khruschev issued passports to collective farmers. The fact that it is nearly impossible for people to move from smaller towns and villages to better-off cities, reminds Russians of this old bondage to the land. This is one of the reasons “feudalism” is mentioned often in Russian political conversations.

SEAN: What features of the USSR that made it what it is are gone and not currently in the process of being replaced?

I think you missed the point regarding textbooks. The problem isn’t the errors (although they are ghastly), it’s the solution that has been devised to allegedly fix the errors. Just like the Extremism Law is supposedly to stop racism but in fact a measure to stop independent media and NGOs, the MT is reporting that the new textbook procedure is classic Soviet mechanism designed to control undesirable content. Isn’t that as Neo-Soviet as you can get? Have a look at the MT article. Do you disagree with the MT that the new text review system is essentially the same as the Soviet model?

By the way, out of curiousity, did you write up that incident a couple years ago when a Russian high school history text of some standing was banned by the Kremlin because it asked the students to think critically about whether Putin was a dictator? If so I’d like to read what you wrote.

not to get all gendered and shit, but ya piani, ponimaesh? someone obviuosly needs to get laid

What I understand, Johnnie dear, is that you’re a liar, a sexist pig and a really silly little boy, all rolled into one. In other words, a classic Russophile piece of garbage.

and you forgot a drunk as well

might well be, drunk like mel gibson, i.e., when the real man comes out.

I’m not drunk nor sexist or a “little boy”. However, I do consider you to be a rather one-dimensional commentator with delusions of grandeur.

You keep bringing up this question about what “the world” should do about Kommersant being purchased. Did “the world” do anything when similar purchases and news media corporations were consolidated within the United States? Is there even a role for “the world” to object or comment on such things in a sensible and rational form?

Almost all news media is designed to generate a profit and influence opinions, in one direction or another. Kommersant is and was no different.

Personally, I’m not sure if conventional news media has the same power that it once had. I think the internet and spread of opinion columns and journals (“blogs”) provide people access to a much more bewildering variety of ideas than they had 100, 50, or even 20 years ago. We have samizdat raised to the 10th power, throughout most of the modern world.

Certainly the Russian news media is not perfect, but I don’t see it as being categorically more objectionable or biased than US or European news media.

PS Sean – ??? ????

LR: I enjoy reading Sean’s blog. He offers fresh analysis and reasoned opinion. It is clear that he studies Russian and Soviet history with a devotion you cannot begin to imagine.

I also appreciate that Sean’s blog attracts thinking people with some grasp of logic and pure intellect. I appreciate that such people add to the debate through Sean’s comment spaces.

You, my preadolescent dearie, are the disgusting exception to the rule. You bring, as W. Shedd has so rightly pointed out, delusions of grandeur, misplaced and unjustified condescension, and one-note claims that reveal no depth of thought. Beyond this, your comments here, as well as on your own blog, reveal your delusional desire to be compared to Sakharov & Solzhenitsyn. This would be laugable if it were not so sad and insulting to Sakharov & Solzhenitsyn.

I am also disgusted by the fact that you (clearly motivated by the fact that no one is reading or engaging your copy-and-paste site [note how seldom anyone comments on your "copywork," i mean "blog"]) find it necessary to colonize Sean’s.

My advice: 1) learn how to reason and analyze; 2) study Russian and Soviet history before blabbing endlessly and confusedly about it; 3) quit confusing yourself with Solzhenitsyn and ask yourself why you feel the need to do so in the first place; 4) recognize that intellectual debate requires a modicum of decency and civility on the part of ALL interlocutors.

If you take this advice, you may begun to truly understand why you encounter hostility whenever you spew your garbage here.

Most of all, I sincerely hope that you someday realize that people will only take you seriously as a commentator when and if you yourself begin to take Russia, and its complicated history, seriously.

Until then, you will continue to strike the rest of us as a shallow & hysterical provocateur, a babbling fountain of teenage angst, a non-entity in the real debates that take place here on Sean’s blog.

In the meantime, enjoy Bulgakov & Dostoevskii. If you try hard enough, you might learn something from them.

Good Luck.