“Neither Liberal nor Neo-Stalinist”

Haven’t read the article.
Just want to be ahead of you-know-who.

But remember! Medvedev is not President. Yet. Much might happen.
If I were “opposition figure” I would hide very deep as there is no need for me(when the game is lost) in live form….

Damn you Ivanov! Damn you and your lightning-fast posting skills!

It’s tempting to point out that Nik I’s son, Alexander II, was cautious, sensitive and “liberal” by comparison. A “reformer.”

So — if we’re struggling for historical analogies — what would 19th century Russia have looked like if BOTH Alexander AND his dad had been in power as a team? For sure, Papa wouldn’t have allowed emancipation of the serfs. And all those beourgeois lefties who sprang up under Alex would have found themselves in the slammer or worse.

Well, tempting. But Ames’s point is a good one. We don’t get very far lazily applying labels from North American and W. European politics. Equally, I’m not sure whether Russia’s own history is much of a guide.

In current political discourse, “Stalinist” is as meaningless as “fascist.” It’s a swearword for people you don’t like. Like “democrat” means people you do like.

In modern Russia “democrat” is a swear word too.

This is all worth thinking about. I imagine Putin might like the comparison, although it would have to include Nik I’s role in setting up Benkendorf’s uber-police, which sort of created the roots of the Chekist tradition. Also, I can’t help remembering the not-so-simple situation faced by people like Pushkin under Nik I, but that’s probably just because I took too many lit classes.

As for labels, I think “liberal” is a lot more reasonable to use in general (less loaded and as long as one as talking about economic policy and not “freedoms” then I think it’s pretty clearly defined) than “neo-Stalinist,” but then I think the choice Ames presents might be sort of a false dichotomy, in the sense that one doesn’t have to be Stalinist to wish for the return of some or many elements of the Soviet Union. I’m surprised no one here is talking about the Chinese model, which seems like what the guys in the Kremlin would emulate if they could.

By “here” do you mean on this blog, or in commentary in general?

I think the absence of the comparison with China in popular Western commentary is probably related to the ambivalent attitude of the West toward the PRC. (That, and Chinese don’t have white skin.)

In general, but also “here,” because here we seem to be trying to figure out illustrative comparisons and make forecasts, and one way to fathom what a MedvePutin Administration’s policies might be is to look at a system which they might want to emulate. There were a lot of reasons people (both in Russia and outside of Russia) at the start of the ’90s said Russia couldn’t/shouldn’t/wouldn’t follow a Chinese model, but those reasons seem to have been forgotten in light of the PRC’s success.

I think the absence of the comparison is due in part to the fact that it isn’t one Russians particularly like to make. By the way, it’s true that the West is broadly ambivalent toward China, but there have in recent years been fairly intense policy debates (often involving people who seem to be supported by the Taiwan lobby), especially about engagement with China in non-economic areas. Without wanting to range too far off topic, see, for example, this article (though it’s a bit dated, I remembered it because I was working at the time for one of the people involved).

“I think the absence of the comparison is due in part to the fact that it isn’t one Russians particularly like to make.”

I saw a TV special a few years ago hosted by that TV guy whose name I can’t remember (he’s a famous liberal) on China that contrasted China’s economic success with the economic collapse of the 90s (lots of shots of old people in Russia looking through garbage cans). The subtext appeared to be the superiority of Chinese-style reform to Russian-style revolution.

Than again China may very well have lots of homeless people for all I know. 60% of the population is still poor peasants.

I think that Russia’s Soviet period changed the nature of Russia to such an extent that when we talk of Russia now we should refer to it as post-Soviet Russia. In other words, although the Russia of today is very different from Soviet Russia, the psychology, behavior and political culture of today’s Russia is much much more of a legacy of its Soviet period than of its pre-1917 era. Although there is nothing controversial in what I just wrote, in my opinion the continuity of present-day Russia with pre-Soviet Russia is often overstated.

A note to “fh”: Nikolai I, as reactionary as he was, actually thought that serfdom was a ballast that was holding back Russia.

Lyndon, I agree with you about China. I am not a political analyst or anything of the sort, but for many years now I had the impression Putin (and many others) would have much preferred to follow the Chinese model. It’s just that they cannot totally undo what Gorbachev and Yeltsin did, so perhaps the system that is shaping up, whether by design or not, is more similar to what Mexico had during the heydays of the PRI.

“Lyndon, I agree with you about China. I am not a political analyst or anything of the sort, but for many years now I had the impression Putin (and many others) would have much preferred to follow the Chinese model. It’s just that they cannot totally undo what Gorbachev and Yeltsin did, so perhaps the system that is shaping up, whether by design or not, is more similar to what Mexico had during the heydays of the PRI.”

In a strange way, it occurs to me that actually Yeltsin _was_ in a sense following the Chinese model — unpopular change forced on society from above.

Chris, there is at least one crucial difference with the Chinese model, especially during the Yelsin years: freedom of expression.

Fair enough, since 2000 or so there has been more talk of Russia following a Chinese model – I think the TV guy you’re thinking of is Parfyonov.

The dominance of the peasantry in China was one of the reasons that the Chinese model was assumed to be unworkable in Russia.

In a strange way, it occurs to me that actually Yeltsin _was_ in a sense following the Chinese model — unpopular change forced on society from above.

I guess that depends on how you define your terms.

“I guess that depends on how you define your terms.”

I was thinking of the traditional (for both Russia and China) pattern of reform/revolution coming sverkhu.

To grossly oversimplify, Chinese model = state-managed, non-”shocking” economic reform without political reform. Meanwhile, “Russian model”* = trying to do everything at once – shock therapy, political liberalization, introduction of freedoms. That is the difference as I see it.

* in quotation marks because no one refers to such a thing, both because Russia was in a fairly unique situation and because no one would want to replicate the results.

And I thought the revolutions in both places in the 20th C were upwellings of mass consciousness, made inevitable by the unstoppable march of historical progress

“And I thought the revolutions in both places in the 20th C were upwellings of mass consciousness, made inevitable by the unstoppable march of historical progress”

How dare you slight the role of the vanguard party!

Oh right, the vanguard – sorry, it’s been a long time (over 10 years) since I took “History of the Russian Revolution”…

Unfortunately a completely wrong paradigm has evolved among Russia watchers in which Russia is either ruled by an autocrat or developing its own type of democracy. This paradigm completely misses what is going on in Russia right now. Which is:

Just as during the “democratic” Yeltsin era, the political elite and their friends in the security services are getting rich while the rest of the country sinks in the quicksand of bureaucracy, police abuse, selective prosecution and corruption.

Much of the population is finally experiencing a certain degree of stability, hence their willingness to completely ignore politics and accept the fact that as long as they can buy Ikea furniture and have access to some middle-class comforts. As my wife always says, just let us enjoy a few years of political stability before everything gets fucked up again.

The authoritarian/democratic debate over Russia misses the essence of the situation. Ames is right when he says that the reception of Medvedev’s anointment in the West only reiterates to what degree they have no idea what the fuck is going on here.

Russians, I think, basically understand what’s going on: Get what you can while the getting’s good. They’re less concerned about whose stuffing their Swiss bank accounts on their backs as long as they have a few years of peace and quiet.

“Russians, I think, basically understand what’s going on: Get what you can while the getting’s good. They’re less concerned about whose stuffing their Swiss bank accounts on their backs as long as they have a few years of peace and quiet”

If I have got it right it is not just stability but increasing incomes and decreasing poverty they are getting. However what this blog is skirting round is the whole question of the validity of current Western democratic ideas as practised since the Second World War.

I totally agree that Russia’s current rulers would have prefered a Chinese style evolution but it is too late now and anyway we should not forget that the top priority under Yeltsin, according to Marshall Goldmann was to bury the Soviet Communist party so deep it could not resurface again.

What they are doing now is following de Gaulle in retaining democracy but trying to limit the damage that unbridled parliamentary politics can cause. I found a good quote from the great man the other day: –
“I am not afraid of death but there are certain things I want to achieve before that happens. I intend to rid this country of its politicians” – and he did for quite a while.

I do not agree with the implication that Putin is personnally corrupt. I do not expect him to retire a pauper but neither do I believe that it is money that makes him tick any mor than it did his illustrious role model de G.

I’m not quite sure I understand the purpose of bringing up Nicolas I, but I’d like to point out that culmination of Nicolas I ‘glorious’ reign was an ignoble defeat in Crimean War.

To make fun of Baroness Frederics sycophantic effusions, apparently N1 kept on “heaping still greater glory upon” Russia until he ran the country headlong into Crimean defeat and “everyone and everything bowed down before him and before Russia” until some finally decided to knock it down a bit.

I apologize for veering off topic, but a question to the folks here that have a better sense of what’s going on in Russia (I have not been there since the terrible Yeltsin days):

Does the fact that LiveJournal was just acquired by SUP, a Russian company, means that in the future Russian bloggers will become more careful in what they write about Russian politics and current affairs? Will this change of ownership have a gradual a chilling effect on the Russian blogosphere?

Some people are worried about it, even when acknowledging that this transaction made good sense from the business point of view. Others say that the worriers are being too paranoid.

Any thoughts?

I don’t think it necessarily will. According to one of the SUP guys, the user agreements are still governed by California law and have CA courts as the venue to resolve disputes. On the other hand, I do understand people who worry about this – and if I was the worrying type, then the fact that Russia.ru put out an interview that was intended to be reassuring would have the opposite effect (see interview here – http://www.russia.ru/sup/ ).

The worriers are being paranoid and any “chilling effect” will be imposed on users will be on themselves.

Some might call this a classic example of a self-censorship dynamic.

Thanks, guys. That’s fairly reassuring. Sean, not being a techie, I assumed that since China somehow manages to keep an eye on what’s being discussed in the Chinese blogs, newsgroups and so on, it could also be done in Russia. If my assumption was wrong, I’m relieved.

“to keep an eye” is rather weak, I’m sure all governments do that. What China does is more than simply keep an eye on things….

I think it is relatively easy to “keep an eye” upon those blogs or forums that are getting some attention or buzz. Certainly we do it all the time, as individuals. With a little bit of technology behind you, it is all the easier.

Further, we’ve seen evidence of how “ringers” can influence discussion in certain forums (see John Mackey) or even edit content (see CIA and other government agency influence on wikipedia).

If I were doing this for the Russian government, I would not be above steering the discussion into directions that were advantageous for us. Perhaps certain nationalistic topics or information/misinformation would be the best methods to do this. I would presume the goal would be to make the public less susceptible to outside (foreign) influences or negative impressions of the Russian government, and innoculate, if you will, public sentiment in these forums.

I think it could be done very easily and subtly without arousing suspicion. Certainly we accuse the TV and print news media of doing similar things.

So maybe in that context, it wouldn’t be censorship that is the problem, but disguised government influences that could possibly steer the direction of discussion. A handful of popular bloggers with an well-crafted agenda could certainly do this.

Of course, you can do this with or without Russian ownership of ZheZhe.

What is the old line … the question isn’t if you are paranoid – the question is are you paranoid enough.

I’d be astounded if the Russian goverment monitored any internet use other than employing a handful of people searching the web to make sure nobody is boasting they are about to whack Putin or detonate a bomb on the Moscow metro.

Don’t offend bloggers’ sense of self-importance, Tim.

-1
)

I enjoyed your blog.

http://www.deacon-pat.blogspot.com

I’d be astounded if the Russian goverment monitored any internet use other than employing a handful of people searching the web to make sure nobody is boasting they are about to whack Putin or detonate a bomb on the Moscow metro.

Other than a handful of people searching the web … isn’t that all anyone is talking about? Seems like a meaningless double-statement. Sort of like saying other than a handful of Muslim extremists there are no Islamic terrorists seeking to attack the US.

In this day an age, I fully expect most large governments have programs and individuals that monitor the internet to some degree. Software likely does most of the web-crawling. Given the amount of effort the Kremlin has gone to recruiting young right-minded activists to take to the streets, I would personally be astounded if they didn’t implement something similar regarding the internet.

Political activism, commentary, blogging, and what have you has become big business on the internet in the US. The Russian government is sure to notice. We’ve already seen cases here and there where even local or regional authorities file suit against Russians for things they wrote or posted on the internet. Considering that the Russian government is reportedly coming up with a domestic equivalent to the world-wide web, I’d say public discourse on the internet already has their attention.

Democracy is a word used too much in the west to cover such a wide area of politics.
Stalinist is often used to insult intellectuals but in this world we need to move to accomodate both ways of thinking and deal with politics on a day to day basis dealing with issues as they arise and not stuck in rigid dogma.
It is also unfair of the west to insult Stalinist ideology as the evolution of these countries and their population and geography meant firm control was needed like in China.
Russia lost more people then any country in the war and effectively won the war for the world and suffered the most. I hope they can move to a more European politics in time as Russian culture and art are the envy of the world and the west loves Russia and it’s buildings and history.
It is no good to blame politicians from the past for running their country the best way at the time for their people and also no good moving too fast away from one form of government to another for financial reasons.
Maybe I am naive but I think the third way middle way like in Britain is the best option for all countries this century dealing with politics daily as it happens with less left or right influence but then it is only my opinion. Gordon Brown was a Stalinist supporter at University but now he has moved with the times as we all have to and realised that people just want comfortable lives for their families and the (occasional beer!)
Great blog my friend.
Dmitri Medvedev Russian Presidential Candidate

Other than a handful of people searching the web … isn’t that all anyone is talking about?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but a handful of people searching the web is not what I am talking about when I discuss government monitoring or censoring of the internet.

The governments of Kuwait and UAE, both under which I lived, had entire departments filled with armies of people – as well as enormous firewalls and sophisticated crawling software – dedicated to identifying and censoring internet content both domestic and foreign. Our neighbours Saudi Arabia and Qatar took similar measures.

I see no evidence of such activities in Russia, hence I doubt the extent to which the Russian government “monitors” or censors the internet is more than a handful of people casting an eye around.