Lots of important Russia news has come and gone since I was forced to turn my attention to preparing for my trip. Immediate concerns prevented me from commenting on the fall out from the race riot in Kondopoga, the assassination of Central Bank deputy chairman Andrei Kozlov, the continuing debate about the meaning and implications of “sovereign democracy,” the Russian government throwing roadblocks on the Sakhalin-Shell Oil deal, the proposal for an “all-Caucasian” amnesty, among many other things. Who knows if I will be able to provide some thoughts on these events since the news waits for no one.
Instead, I want to turn readers’ attention to some broader issues.
As I was shopping for some reading for my London-Moscow flight, I happened upon the most recent issue of the Economist. The cover immediately struck me. It read: “Surprise! The Power of the Emerging World.” The issue was devoted to the growing economic might of mostly China and India, and predictions of China eclipsing the United States by the middle of the century. As the editors write in “The New Titans”:
Emerging countries are looming larger in the world economy by a wide range of measures. Their share of world exports has jumped to 43%, from 20% in 1970. They consume over half of the world’s energy and have accounted for four-fifths of the growth in oil demand in the past five years. They also hold 70% of the world’s foreign-exchange reserves.
Of course there is more than one respectable way of doing the sums. So although measured at purchasing-power parity (which takes account of lower prices in poorer countries) the emerging economies now make up over half of world GDP, at market exchange rates their share is still less than 30%. But even at market exchange rates, they accounted for well over half of the increase in global output last year. And this is not just about China and India: those two together made up less than one-quarter of the total increase in emerging economies’ GDP last year.
And who is part of this cadre of “emerging” or as the Economist rightly puts it by adding a historical spin, re-emerging economies? They of course include China and India, but also Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. According to their projections for 2040, the top ten economies will respectively be: China, the US, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, Germany, Britain, and France. Presently, only China and Brazil are in the top ten.
The various reasons for this predicted dominance go far beyond my expertise in economics. Suffice to say that such a “re-emergence” (and the term is reserved for the fact that China and India dominated the world economy before Europe took off during the industrial revolution and what the Economist fails to remember in its historical analysis, imperialism) is not without geopolitical consequences. While there is no sign of a parallel Asian military block emerging because the US is cuddling up to India with hopes that it will become a bulwark to China, and China choosing not to transform its economic successes into military buildup, such a economic reorientation will undoubtedly produce geopolitical tensions. Some in the American sphere see this and reason that this is the real logic behind the Bush Administration’s military forays in Iraq and Afghanistan and political interventions in the Caucuses and Central Asia. Powerful states need fuel and access to oil is quickly becoming the “Great Game” of the 21st century.
Where does Russia stand in all this? While much of the Economist’s analysis focuses on the macro level, and when it does descend to the grown it focuses on China and India, Russia is included among the top ten by the middle of the century. One can guess that Russia’s growth will not be the same path as China and India. It looks unlikely that Russia will become the globe’s factory like China or the center of the informal economy like India. Russia, however, will undoubtedly be one of the fuel cells of both these economies. The question is whether this fact will push up the standard of living for Russia’s population.
If we follow Immanuel Wallerstein’s world system analysis, Russia has positioned itself as a classical periphery nation. It produces very little for an international market except for gas and oil, and imports virtually all consumer goods. One need only look at the streets of Moscow to see this. The Zhiguli is rapidly disappearing from the urban landscape only to be replaced by better built Japanese imports. Oil export has its limits and many point out, Russia consumes half of the oil it produces. Such a tend is likely to continue. The Putin administrations reliance on oil exports, places Russia at the mercy of falling oil prices and in the end might become, as Vladimir Milov, the President of the Institute of Energy Policy recently noted, an engine of stagnation.
Like the Economist, Wallerstein also sees the East’s eclipse of the United States. He argues that we are witnessing the birth of new interdependent geopolitical blocs without one center. Writing in the New Left Review he had this to say in regard to Russia’s position:
Three regions warrant special scrutiny because they are all currently in considerable turmoil, the outcome of which is likely to change the geopolitical picture: Europe, East Asia and Latin America. The European story is the best known. In the five years between 2001 and 2005, two major developments occurred in this region. The first was the direct outcome of Bush’s unilateralist revision of us foreign policy. Both France and Germany publicly opposed the US invasion of Iraq in the run-up to March 2003 and obtained support in a number of other European countries. At the same time, they made initial overtures to Russia, starting to create a Paris–Berlin–Moscow axis. In response, the us aided by Britain created a counter-movement, drawing most of the East and Central European states—what Rumsfeld called ‘new’ as opposed to ‘old’ Europe—into their camp. The motivations of the East and Central European states derived primarily from their continuing fear of Russia and hence their felt need for strong ties to the United States.
The second development was the defeat of a proposed European constitution in the referenda in France and the Netherlands. Here the lines were quite different from those over the invasion of Iraq. Some ‘no’ votes came from popular opposition to neoliberalism and fears that the new European constitution would entrench it; others from apprehension at a further expansion of Europe eastward, and the possible entry of Turkey into the EU. In both cases, those who voted No wanted a more autonomous Europe, capable of taking a greater distance from the US. But the combination of the two developments—the split over the invasion of Iraq and the defeat of the new constitution—has so far stymied any thrust towards a stronger, more independent Europe. The question is whether over the next decade this project can be relaunched on a firmer institutional and popular footing. It is still also an open issue whether such a revived European project, if it took off, would arrive at a political arrangement with Russia, such that we could speak of a Euro-Russian geopolitical pole.
While both the Economist and Wallerstein agree with the thesis of American economic decline, unlike the former, the latter does not sever the connection between the US military and economic dominance. In Wallerstein’s view, the Iraq war has exposed a fundamental contradiction of the American military: it has imaginable power, but a power ill suited for asymmetrical warfare. Still how one measures American decline is to get to this conclusion is key. The Economist focuses on hard numbers of economic and military might, while Wallerstein’s evaluation is in terms of the more ephemeral, but no less important, condition of American hegemony. In this respect the sole superpower is in dire straits.
The Euro-Russian geopolitical pole seems poised to benefit from American hegemonic decline. The EU is looking east for oil and gas and Moscow is happy to oblige though without complete subservience. Moscow maintains its power over the spigot like a mighty weapon. Thus the internal balance of the Euro-Russian axis has yet to be determined.
Suffice to say that a Kantian globe of “perpetual peace” is far from likely. Instead, we live in a time of massive geopolitical shift. Contrary to proclamations that the 21st century would be the continuation of the American Century, the world looks more and more as it did in 1914: a multipolar world with many centers bound by military or economic alliances which are competing over less and less spoils.
So, while many seemingly disparate events have evaded my vision in the last few weeks, I think that instead of playing catch up, it would be better to reemerge by positing some aspects of the larger global context. We so often forget, or worse, imagine that Russia is some isolated island that is outside of a world system that it is often necessary to take a moment and evaluate its present and perhaps future position in the global theater.
http://www.inopressa.ru/newsweek/2006/09/18/15:17:21/really
You might also enjoy that article Sean. I was a bit surprised to read such an opinion column in Russian. It in essence says some of what you wrote – that reliance upon oil and gas for economic growth makes Russia weak. Off hand, I’m not familiar with the authors, ????? ????? ? ????????? ??????.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14870274/site/newsweek/
The article Wally mentions is a translation of an article from Newsweek International, which can be found at the link above. Hence, it’s not that surprising.
One doesn’t have to rely on such analysis to dispel the oddball notion that Russia will surpass Germany in economic performance. Just use the veil of igorance. If you were going to be dropped into one country, Germany or Russia, in the year 2106, to take up a randomly selected position in society, which would you choose? I bet 100 people out of 100 would choose Germany.
The idea that future macroeconomic trends can be predicted is silly; this is seen in the fact that those making them don’t bet their life savings on them. What’s more, even if it came true, it wouldn’t make Russia a desirable place to live, so what’s the point? The Kremlin would still gobble up all the funds and use them to oppress the people, who wouldn’t lift a finger to stop it.
What we can predict is that China’s population will continue to grow until it explodes outside its borders and takes Siberia from a helpless Russia.
Thanks Wally for the article and Kim for the English version. Warnings about Russia’s reliance on oil are becoming a chorus even though most of them are a bit specious. Still being solely an energy exporter has never turned out well. Take the Middle East for example, though other factors like imperialism hampered their expansion into other economic areas.
And I agree with Kim that even if Russia does overtake say Germany, it doesn’t make it a desirable place to live in. China is a good example of this. It should be stressed that the Economist (and many economists in general) is not concerned so much about the distribution of wealth. They mostly care about hard numbers and go along with the trickle down theory. Sadly political economy has gone to the wayside. High tides don’t necessarily raise all boats.
One of the things I appreciate is that the Economist isn’t as bad as most American economists on this. They are pretty honest in one section of their article when they say that Westerners need to accept that “there will be some Western victims of globalization.” Some I think is being kind.
In terms of Russia’s oil wealth, it is clear that it isn’t being redirected back into social welfare. Putin refuses to pump any money into the failing healthcare and educational system. Instead, he looks to increase the burden on Russians by privatizing them.
SEAN:
Would you agree that the reason Putin won’t spend money on his society is because doing so would empower opposition? If so, does that confirm Putin is a weak ruler? Isn’t it in the interest of a weak dictator to have a sick, poor society, all the easier to rule over?
Would you also agree that the Russian people are failing to exercise their civic responsibilty to pressure Putin in this regard? If so, does that confirm Russia is a weak society? Because of their lack of civic responsibility, aren’t the Russian people accountable for provocative actions by the Kremlin such as (a) aid to Hamas/Hezbollah; (b) arms to Venezuela; (c) nukes to Iran? Given Russia’s weakness, isn’t provoking a new cold war with the U.S. the last thing in the world it should be doing (just as an arms race was the last thing the USSR should have considered)?
Kim, I don’t think many Russians view those points you try to raise – as you or many Americans might. Most Russians would say that the US provoked a response from the Kremlin with certain policies, perhaps most notably the US “quitting” the anti-ballistic missle treaty. While the US has said quitting this treaty isn’t a threat to Russia – this is NOT the opinion within Russia itself.
How is a weak dictator more secure with a sick and poorly treated society? How is that easier to “rule over”? In fact, don’t revolutions come about from such circumstances? Yet the situation in Russia seems quite the opposite – with a largely happy population (happy with Putin as a leader).
My impression is that Putin is a strong (in the sense of assertive) president in areas that he feels he can directly control (international relations) and less strong domestically. This doesn’t make him very different from many American presidents in the past.
One of the things I’ve most noticed about growing affluence in Russia is how it is most enjoyed by young, urban Russian professionals. These Russian yuppies don’t seem to care (any more than their American counterparts did/do) about aging poor pensioners, or others who are left behind in the Russian economy.
I think it is a mistake to try to measure Russian opinions or points of view from an American standard. Listening to more Russians is a good start to revising your ideas on this. I won’t say that I am 100% attuned to the Russian viewpoint (that would be naive) but they definitely do not see the world as many Americans do.
First, let me say that for the most part I agree with Wally’s points. I don’t even really understand your logic Kim. Why would a “weak dictator”, which btw however you try to characterize it, Putin is not, want a weak society? It would seem that a weak ruler would prop up his weak society as much as he could to score brownie points. As for why Putin isn’t using any of that oil money to save the education and health care system, I think it is a no brainer. It is completely in line with capitalist logic: there is a lot of money to be made. And I think Wally is right, most novie russkie don’t give a rats ass about pensioners, let alone their lower class peers.
In terms of civic responsibility, yeah I wish Russian “civil society” would rise up and fight for its economic, political, and social benefit. Instead it seems that it is too consumed with illegal immigration and other social opiates that keep its vision blurred.
Now whether Russia is a strong or weak state is a different matter. I think it is both. It appears strong, but on a concrete level I think it is rather weak. Appearance does matter because it has created an air of legitimacy among its population. This is a major shift from the Yeltsin years. But appearance has a short material life span. I think the Russian state is weak mostly as a result of Putin’s doing. His efforts to reverse the decay of the Yeltsin years have relied on an old form of Russian statecraft: centralize. But centralization has its own contradictions, some of which I noted in my post Assessing the “Accidental Autocrat”. Just to briefly repeat, centralization has made him virtually indispensable because he has positioned himself as the center of Russian politics. I think this is shown by the simple fact that everyone expects and accepts that he will appoint the next president. It is interesting that with the question of who will he appoint is also will Russia survive without Putin. So I my view, Russia not only has a weak society, it has a weak political class. The only strong one is Putin himself and that is the problem. I really feel sorry for the next Russian president because he is going to have to clean house just like Putin did. And if you’ve read Marshal Goldman’s editorial in the Moscow Times, he might have to go to the mattresses against the Kremlin’s oligarchs or accept his fate and become another Yeltsin.
WALLY: I don’t understand how American provoked Russia to supply nuclear technology to Iran, huge quantities of AK-47s and attack planes to Venezuela and financial support and diplomatic cover to Hamas and Hezbollah. You certainly give no coherent explanation of how America has done this. Frankly, I think talking about what the Russian people want is silly, since if we are to believe the polls they are favoring a KGB madman with 70%+ approval ratings even as he destroys democracy in Russia. Maybe the German people thought the concentration camps were a great idea, but that doesn’t make me think they were. What you don’t seem to recognize, nor do the Russian people, is that there is a vast difference in power between the USA and Russia, and Russia simply can’t afford to be as provocative as the US even if the US were acting that way. If Russians are intent on sacrificing their nation and their future to some weird concept of pride, I think that’s crazy.
SEAN: Well, right back at you. I don’t understand how you can possily think that a weak dicator, with few measures of real physical control over the population, would prefer a strong, healthy, vibrant society capable of resistance to a sick, weak one that needs less energy to control. You’ve not answered my question at all. I asked why Putin isn’t investing serious money in the Russian poplulation, to staunch its falling growth and widespread sickness. Instead, he’s amassing huge reserves. Are you saying he’s simply greedy?
There’s a reason Marshall Goldman can’t get published anywhere but the Moscow Times. He’s not worth the paper he’s printed on.
Let me restate my question:
Putin is weak compared to Stalin because he lacks means of physical control right now. No gulag archipelago, smallish secret police, armed forces that are a pathetic joke, much weaker economy, more exposure to Western criticsim. He can use bribery in good times, but in bad times he’d be pressed to stay in power.
So my question is, would a ruler like that prefer to rule over healthy strong people or sick weak people?
The number one arms supplier in the world? The USA.
China will not try to conquer Siberia. China has never been an expansionist power in its two-thousand year history. The borders it has now have always been considered their natural borders, including Taiwan. They will conquer, perhaps, economically, but not militarily.
JOHNNIE: Are you saying that the U.S. is currently supplying weapons to a country that has the same sort of hostile relationship with Russia as Venezuela and Iran do with the U.S.? If so, would you be so kind as to name that country and the amount of weapons it has received from the U.S.? Also, please cite some evidence that Russia’s actions were movivated by a desire to retaliate for that action.
I suggest you learn to read. I never said that China would fight a war with Russia. It doesn’t need to. It will simply take Siberia by osmosis because of the size of its population and Russia’s fundmental weakness. In fact, it is happening right now, as we speak.
all i said was the number 1 arms supplier in the world in the usa. is this not true? and did you ever think that if (?) the us isn’t supplying arms to the enemies of russia, it may be because russia dosen’t have enemies like the us? becuase russia isn’t attempting to be the global hegemon? the us certainly supllied weapons to the enemies of russia/ussr back in the day, did it not?
you know, some of your comments might have some salience if you weren’t so go damned rude and self-righteous. sean is a better man then i, and tries to deal with you as politely as he can, nobody takes you seriously, but as you can probably tell, nobody else who comments on this page takes anything you say simply because of the rhetoric you use. i know that only reinforces your beief that you must be right, you get to play the persecuted victim. it’s sad really. you’re a sad person.
re: china – if i misconstrued something you may or may not have said, wouldn’t it be better to refute me intellectually? regardless of whatever you said, which i wasn’t even really addressing, my point still holds.
on another tangent, i don’t believe stalin was a strong leader. if so, he would not had to have used force to accomplish his aims. of course, there are many who disagree with me on this. after all who am i but an idiot liar who can’t read?
I was very dissapointed to see the above mentioned articel in Newsweek. I can’t fathom why my favorite news magazine would compromise quality of reporting by resorting to publishing propoganda (i.e. idealogical opinions unburdened by facts). I am wondering if it is now wise not to take Newsweek reporting seriously (or at face value). I couldn’t put my arguments better than Mark Ames did (and you get a heck of laugh):
http://www.exile.ru/2006-September-22/feature_story.html
Newsweek is a good journal, but why bother with such pathetic material is beyond me.
I think Johnnie raises some legitimate questions in regard to the United States being the largest arms seller in the world as well as its aspirations to be the global hegemon. I mean look at the fact that the US supplied Israel with cluster bombs, which they used in Lebanon. These are nothing less than a replacement for the much internationally detested landmines. (As a side note, I think it is important to point out that both the United States, Israel and Russia, among other unsavory countries, have not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. I would suspect that arms money is one reason. But when comparing Russian and US recent foreign policy, one can say that the Russians have been far more multilateral than the Americans.
Re: Stalin, weak or strong? I also agree with Johnnie here. The Bolsheviks with Stalin as the head honcho never controlled the country and they knew it until really in the 1950s. If they did they wouldn’t have had to use violence the way they did. Plus the archival material on the 1920s and 30s is pretty clear on the lack of control. I would imagine that what Johnnie is finding in Azerbaijan is even more chaotic that what I see in central archives. At least that is my experience when comparing center and periphery archival holdings. Still many people hang on to the totalitarian model in some form or another, and if I may extrapolate on Johnnie’s suggestion, perhaps it is time to flip the dichotomy of leaders and led to one where the led is consistently in front of the leaders, and the latter are only desperately trying to play catch up by putting out fires.
BIG BLACK: It’s quite pathetic that you label as “pathetic propaganda” the scholarship of two PhDs while as “fact” the idiotic, pornographic slobbering of an uneducated moron like Mark Ames. No wonder Russia can’t make headway with “friends” like you guys.
JOHNNIE: If you think YOU are some kind of model of polite discourse, you need to have your head examined. Seriously. Or at least cut down on the PCP.
JOHNNIE & SEAN: As I understand it, you are both admitting that the U.S. is NOT supplying ANY ARMS to ANY COUNTRY which is anywhere near as hostile to Russia as Venezuela or Iran are to the United States. Nonetheless, you feel that the U.S. is “trying to take over the world” and this justifies Russia providing arms to arch American foes, even though the result will be Cold (and maybe hot) war between the U.S. and Russia, a conflict Russia can’t possibly surivive. So basically, what you’re saying is that you’re happy to sacrifice Russia to some twisted desire to poke a finger in the eye of the United States by undermining world peace. Are you quite sure you want to stand behind that viewpoint?
And meanwhile, even though America is so evil, you’re both still going to spend most of your lives living there, right?
SEAN: If you don’t think that Stalin had control of the country, then you must believe that the Russian people approved of his murdering tens of millions of their fellow citizens, since they could have resisted if he lacked control. That’s quite an important point, I’ll be sure to remember it.
Meanwhile, you STILL fail to answer my original question: If a dictator is weak, doesn’t he naturally prefer to rule over a sick, weak population that is therefore easier to control?
It’s quite a comment on modern Russia that its critics are PhDs/Newsweek and its lone defender is the eXile. To read La Russophobe’s thoughts on the pathetic eXile diatribe that BIG BLACK refers to, CLICK HERE
well, i actually stopped smoking pcp back in the 80s, but reading the posts of the russofope brings back those mind-deadening memories…
and the reason the us might (?) not sell arms to the hostile enemies of russia is that they don’t have any real hostile enemies, unless you want to include georgoa or any of the new nato countries, which are pipsqueaks with no international clout. nevertheless, the point still cannot be refuted, the us is the largest arms supplier in the world. by far.
and i am not setting myself as a model of public discourse, by any means. i tend to open my mouth too much. and people like the russofope bring out the worst in me. i hope those wwho read these comments recognize my rather course sence of humor when it spings up.
Russia is undermining worls peace? Unlike the US? That paragon of peaceful restraint?
but this is my favorite – to qoute “And meanwhile, even though America is so evil, you’re both still going to spend most of your lives living there, right?”
America – love it or leave it, right? I admit, I’m a lucky bastard, coming from America. I get to leave and go wherever I want whenever I want. After all, I’ve spent nearly half my last ten tears in foriegn countries. But I always return home, and I always will. Before one can attempt to change the world, one must start at home. Especially when that home is the dominant global power.
And another surprise is how the russofope is usung any PhDs to back up her arguments, considering she dosen’t have one, and she derides all who post here that do have one, or are close to getting one.
JOHNNIE: Nice try, but you know perfectly well that you aren’t going to change America by living in it. In fact, you know perfectly well that you’re never going to make any really serious effort to try to change it. So if you continue to live in America, you are part of the alleged evil you purport to condemn. There is no escape from that, no matter how much you wiggle.
Of all the wild-eyed things I’ve heard, claiming that Russia doesn’t have any enemies is by far the most outlandish. Surely even you must now realize how bizarre this idea really is. Russia is one of the most reviled nations in world history, and for plenty of good reasons. There isn’t a single nation of substance on the face of the earth that Russia can call a friend, and if you think it has no enemies then I suggest you read the papers and find out what Russians think of the idea of of Ukraine joining NATO. Once you’ve found out about that, try to wrap your puny glue-sniffing mind around what Russians would do if America started supplying huge quantities of weapons to Ukraine (and Georgia, and Moldova, and all the other former Soviet slave states that despise Russia). If you read at all you’d know that Russia is in a total frenzy about the idea of a mere contract between these nations and the U.S., much less delivery of armaments.
And that’s not even the point. The point is that Russians are in NO POSITION to be baiting the U.S. into a new cold war. The USSR couldn’t handle the last one, and Russia is a pale shadow of the USSR. Yet Russia is doing it, just as it is repeating all the other outrageous errors of the Soviet era. This is the beginning of the end for Russia as we know it.
now i’m sniffing glue! damn, i must be one drugged out zombie!
and the comment about me never trying to change anything in america, you don’t know me, you don’t know what i fight for, and once again, your ignorance is showing.
I can barely keep up with all the comments on these threads. Most of them are from LR or crack backs between her, Johnnie, and others. But LR asks me: “If a dictator is weak, doesn’t he naturally prefer to rule over a sick, weak population that is therefore easier to control?”
Ideally, I would imagine that a weak dictator would rather rule over a weak society. But I think in reality it is more complicated than that. I happen to believe that dictatorships or authoritarian systems do not rule solely through fear or violence; they maintain their power through some measure of popular support. But it needs to be clear that this support is not electoral. Popular support can be expressed in a variety of ways, some active and some passive. I think that Machiavelli’s writings, not to mention Marxist rethinking of them by Gramsci and then Althusser, are a way of thinking about this. Also there are lots of historical studies on both fascism and Stalinism that show that both systems were based on forms of populism. This is why I reject the term “totalitarian” to describe such systems and instead call them “authoritarian populism.”
So while a weak dictator might prefer to rule over a weak society (and I think what the term “weak” means need to be clarified in this context), a smart dictator might increase his strength by boosting some elements of society. Stalin did this in the 1930s through encouraging forms of mass participation to carry out collectivization, industrialization, not to mention the Terror. This of course had a cost. Collectivization and the Terror quickly spun out of Stalin’s control. But it did bring Stalin popularity among the vydvizhentsy because they benefited from his policies. So in this case Stalin gained support and became stronger by creating a new Soviet middle class. On the flipside this required the final elimination of the old elite and Old Bolshevik middle class.
In addition, I think that one should not make wide generalizations. The state and its corresponding society are incredibly stratified. Dictators even those as archetypical as Stalin must negotiation and placate factions within the elite to maintain their power. Even when Stalin was shooting members of the Politburo he could only get away with this by having other elite’s support. Similarly, while one part of society may be “weak”, anther part may be “strong”. So say in Putin’s case the parts of society that matter for him to maintain power: the growing Russian middle class, the elite, and other notables, they are doing quite well, while one can say that the lower classes in Russian society are doing quite bad. But Putin is not a dictator, and I think that the legitimacy that comes with being “democratically elected,” however imperfect that election was, gives him a lot of symbolic power that prevents even the downtrodden elements of society to tough it out.
JOHNNIE: I know you haven’t given any evidence of anything you’ve ever done to try to change anything in America, and until you do I’ll reject your ridiculous claim as typical nonsense.
SEAN: Define “dicator” so as to exclude Putin.
you want the truth! you can’t handle the truth!
you’re such a fucking simpleton. ignorance must truly be bliss. from now on, that’s what i’m going to call you. miss bliss
JOHNNIE: So, as I understand it, a person who is NOT a “fucking simpleton” says things like “fucking simpleton”, right? So using the term “fucking” is a sign of great intellectual sophistication, right?
Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Shakespeare. You are now my intellectual model. Phi Beta Kappa, were you dear?
yes, miss bliss, i was phi beta kappa. and i also graduated sum cum loud.
JOHNNIE: Maybe you mean crybabykappa?