Stats
-
-
Dec
20
Putin’s Time
December 20, 2007 |
Time’s Person of the Year. Who would have thunk it? Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin joins Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, and Mikhail Gorbachev. Three other Russian leaders who’ve received the honor.
Stalin was named twice, in 1939 and 1942. The first for “dramatically switching the power balance of Europe one August night” when the vozhd’ signed the now infamous Nazi-Soviet Pact. “History may not like him” Time prophesied,”but history cannot forget him.” And how. Ironically, the 1942 honor came when Stalin became an ally of the United States against Hitler. According to Time, everything that happened that war plagued year–Chiang Kai-shek holding his own against the Japanese, Churchill’s victory over the Nazis in Egypt, Roosevelt’s bringing the full weight of the US war machine on the Axis–seemed small next to Stalin. As Time explained, “and, worthy though they may prove, they inevitably pale by comparison with what Joseph Stalin did in 1942.” The Red Army repulsed the Germans at Stalingrad, leading to four Soviet offensives that eventually pushed the Germans back to Berlin.
The garrulous Nikita Khrushchev was named “Man of the Year” in 1957. Nothing other than a little satellite that went “beep, beep, beep” gained him the accolade. Russia won the space race by launching Sputnik I and Sputnik II into the Earth’s orbit. But that wasn’t all the peasant’s son did in 1957. A year before he shocked the Communist world with his “Secret Speech” which denounced his mentor, Stalin. It also allowed him to politically outwit his rivals on the Politburo. He reached out to the Middle East by giving $563 million to aid Arab nationalism in Syria and Egypt. He achieved much more in that year even though he did “not yet have absolute power, [was] still best described as chairman of the gang.” Still, he proved politically wily toward his opponents, using a combination of guile and good old Russian muzhestvo to beat them. Said Time, “In 1957, Nikita Khrushchev outran, outfoxed, outbragged, outworked and outdrank them all.”
Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded “Man of the Year” in 1987 and “Man of the Decade” in 1989. So far Gorbachev has been the only person praised with the latter title. Not bad for a peasant born in the village Privolnoye during the nightmare of collectivization. But Time didn’t recognize Gorbachev for his background, or as a symbol of Soviet upward mobility (Khrushchev was probably a better symbol of the particular Stalinist kind). He was honored because he did the unthinkable. Although a Stalinist in his youth, Gorbachev instituted reforms that would eventually unlock many of the secrets of that ideology. Perestroika, which he argued was “to revive the spirit of Leninism,” was a kind of neo-NEP that sought to institute controlled market forces and decentralization into the stagnant Soviet economy. Glasnost turned much of the Soviet profane into the sacred. As a result, the “black spots” of Soviet history rapidly began to lighten. In the eyes of Time, all of this made Gorbachev “a new unfamiliar kind of leader” who recognized that “the old rules of dealing with that long-suffering land [were] suddenly outdated.”
But that was only the beginning of Time’s recognition of Gorbachev. In 1989, they saw him as the “Man of the Decade.” Why? “Because,” Time explained, “he is the force behind the most momentous events of the ’80s and because what he has already done will almost certainly shape the future.” And though Gorbachev didn’t “mean to abolish communism,” he learned that history is a real bitch to control. Right when you think you have it by the reigns, it violently bucks from your grip. Don’t think so? Just ask George Bush. The future Gorbachev was ushering, however, wouldn’t fully emerge until 1991, when the Soviet Union imploded. That historical act, which this year’s “Person of the Year” has called “the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century,” has certainly shaped our present. More than people seem to be willing to acknowledge.
In 1989, Gorbachev was still considered a positive revolutionary. Time compared him with all sorts of world historical figures. He was the “Copernicus, Darwin and Freud of communism all wrapped in one.” He was “Prospero in a realm ruled by Caliban.” He was “simultaneously the communist Pope and the Soviet Martin Luther, the apparatchik as Magellan and McLuhan.” Indeed, Gorbachev was in a sense a “global navigator” but one similar to how Viktor Chernov described Lenin in April 1917,
“He seems to be made of one chunk of granite. And he is all round and polished like a billiard ball. There is nothing you can get hold of him by. He rolls with irrepressible speed. But he could repeat to himself the well-known phrase “I don’t know where I am going, but I am going there resolutely.”
If Gorbachev didn’t have a clue where he was going and where he was dragging Russia behind him, this year’s “Person of the Year” has no doubts. Vladimir Putin is not so much dragging Russia as he is pushing it. True, he is not the first Russian Sisyphus, all those listed above were sisyphi in their own right. And if Time began their “Man of the Year” award three centuries earlier, it would have certainly recognized Peter the Great, Catherine II, Nicholas I, Alexander I, and Lenin among their honored. Some say Putin is a Tsar. The more idiotic call him a neo-Stalin. Putin, however, would be better seen as a manager, a CEO, and a sort of mafia don. Putin sees himself as a Russian Franklin Roosevelt. He has the insurmountable task of prosecuting Russia’s revival at the same time he has to keep his rival boyars’ corruption within acceptable boundaries. Putin is a pragmatist more than anything. And this requires him to pick his battles. Sometimes he does so with exactness. Other times hubris gets the better of him.
Putin is mostly demonized in the West. Nothing says this more than the fact that Time’s Adi Ignatius spent three and a half hours with the man, yet in the article we hear as many quotes from Garry Kasparov than from Putin. The response from the American political class on Putin’s recognition was predictable. Republican Presidential candidate Mit Romney called Time’s move “disgusting” instead designating the US military viceroy in Iraq General David Petraeus as more worthy. John McCain also thought Petraeus was a better pick. All McCain sees in Putin is “three letters - a K, a G and a B.” Then in his cowboy way McCain stated ““I would have had a much stronger response to Mr. Putin a long time ago.” If elected, it seems that hubris might get the better of McCain too.
But there you have it. Time has spoken and not without sparking controversy. That’s one thing it as its Person of the Year have in common. Putin is controversial the world over. And like Time, we can certainly count on him to continue speaking.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Comments
60 Comments so far
-
Subscribe
RIA Novosti- Global Voices: Russia
-
-
Pervyi nakh. Thanks for taking the time to write this up, Sean, it’s thoughtful and thought-provoking as always.
If Gorbachev didn’t have a clue where he was going and where he was dragging Russia behind him, this year’s “Person of the Year” has no doubts.
Oh, I’m not sure about that. Does Putin really have a “plan”? Sometimes it looks like he just does things by the seat of his pants and (to mix metaphors) is just trying to ride the tiger as long as he can.
Just when you think you have it by the reigns, it violently bucks from your grip. Don’t think so? Just ask George Bush.
I assume you are referring to the Iraq War, which is of zero relevance to the collapse of the USSR and Gorbachev’s role in it, and I doubt any historian worth his salt will write that the Iraq War changed the course of history in the Middle East, let alone the world.
Obligatory sideswipes against Bush made at every point and turn might impress some of your readers, but for me it makes me scroll the pinwheel on the mouse and look for something a bit less yawn-inducing.
I assume you are referring to the Iraq War, which is of zero relevance to the collapse of the USSR and Gorbachev’s role in it, and I doubt any historian worth his salt will write that the Iraq War changed the course of history in the Middle East, let alone the world.
Oh God. Maybe its best that you “scroll the pinwheel” since you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. The sight of Bush’s name clearly sends you into a defensive tizzy. My comment had nothing to do with anything you say above. It had to do with the fact that leaders think they can implement actions that will equal desired results when in fact once you start something–perestroika or a war–control quickly slips from your grasp. The comment is about having some humility in thinking you can unleash events and then actually control them.
The sight of Bush’s name clearly sends you into a defensive tizzy.
When deployed in a lazy, adolescent manner, purely for the sake of it, then yes, it does.
My comment had nothing to do with anything you say above.
No? Nothing to do with the Iraq War then?
It had to do with the fact that leaders think they can implement actions that will equal desired results when in fact once you start something–perestroika or a war–control quickly slips from your grasp.
Oh, so the comment did have to do with Bush and the Iraq War!
But as I said before, there is no relevance whatsoever between Gorbachev and Bush in this context. The US experience in Iraq insofar as the extent to which the invading army has not been able to control events is unremarkable, and not any different from the British Arm’s intervention into Northern Ireland. A quick glance at history, and almost every military adventure takes a similar course whereby foreseen and unforseen consequences unfold and things get out of hand, to an extent.
What happened with Gorbachev and his attempts to reform the USSR is completely different in terms of scale, importance, longevity, and precedent than all the other cases of political meddling causing unforseen consequences, which is why it is deserving of a discussion without a completely unnecessary sideswipe at Bush.
FWIW, the Bush mention was entirely appropriate. Gorbachev was person of the year (of the decade, actually) right before he became a very unpopular and ultimately unsuccessful (in what set out to do) leader. The same with Bush, he was riding high when he became the person of the year, and a short time later he was not only unpopular but also unsuccessful domestically and internationally.
I’d like to second Tim Newman’s call to stop pointless and misleading Bush remarks. They only detract from otherwise well composed and thoughtful posts.
Many times speaking with Russian friends I have to listen to long recital of anti-Bush creeds directly from ‘Fahrenheit 911′. Apparently Michael Moore is very big in Russia. Usually they end with a confident assertion that the movie ‘F911′ was prohibited for release in the US.
When I try to explain how Bush is roundly criticized in the US for trusting Putin too much and how it is almost inevitable that any future POTUS will be much more anti-Russian than Bush, they simply can’t comprehend that.
People, people, people. Too much is being made of my mention of Bush. All I was saying is that leaders think they can control the flow of history. So I used Bush (and I should state, not Bush the person but his whole team) as an example? Big fucking deal. It’s the hubris of leadership that is the bigger, and I think more important issue.
To state again, my point was exactly what Tim says here: “invading army has not been able to control events is unremarkable, and not any different from the British Arm’s intervention into Northern Ireland>” Um, yes. Yet, leaders still have the gumption to think they can control the events they unleash. So maybe it still needs to be pointed out.
If you all can’t take me mentioning or “swiping” at Bush, no matter how lazy or adolescent you perceive it, then go somewhere else. Maybe there is an earnest adult blogger out there that suits your expectations. Because nothing is more annoying than when people harp on minutia to comfort their political anxieties.
To quote Forrest Gump, “That’s all I have to say about that.”
The mentioning of Bush as regards events that proceed out of your control is entirely appropriate.
Strange that Newman would suggest that no historian will consider the Iraq War of historical importance, when Bush and his party were suggesting just a few short years ago that it would reshape the Middle East and plant the seeds of democracy there forever. I believe that was version 2.0 of the reason why we should engage in a preemptive war in Iraq.
As with Gorby (and possibly Putin), it just goes to show that you can plant the seeds, but you can’t predict what will grow.
So I used Bush (and I should state, not Bush the person but his whole team) as an example?
Yes, which was a crap example, which looked as though you were too idle to think of a decent one.
Big fucking deal. It’s the hubris of leadership that is the bigger, and I think more important issue.
Then use an example other than the standard Bush sideswipe. King Cnut, perhaps? (Which is normally incorrectly cited, I might add.)
If you all can’t take me mentioning or “swiping” at Bush, no matter how lazy or adolescent you perceive it, then go somewhere else.
Oh, I can take it all right. But you’ll get a response if I take objection to it.
Because nothing is more annoying than when people harp on minutia to comfort their political anxieties.
I disagree. Nothing is more annoying than those who have excellent things to say on a subject, but cannot resist joining in with the largely ignorant, infantile mob by nailing their colours to a mast which has all the originality of a high-school politics club, and has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
Strange that Newman would suggest that no historian will consider the Iraq War of historical importance, when Bush and his party were suggesting just a few short years ago that it would reshape the Middle East and plant the seeds of democracy there forever.
This assumes, for reasons known only to Mr Shedd, that historians rank events on what politicians predicted at the time as opposed to what actually took place. Remove this assumption, and things don’t look so strange.
Perhaps if Bush had been correct in his prediction, historians would judge the Iraq war differently. As things stand, it is unlikely they will judge that it has changed much.
You are much too kind with your latest critics, Sean. Your mention of Bush was appropriate and right on target.
“Apparently Michael Moore is very big in Russia.”
Nope. Fahrenheit 9/11 tanked.
Fahrenheit 9/11 tanked
I wonder if this takes into account the copied DVDs, which is how most Russians appear to watch foreign films (in Sakhalin, anyway). Most Russians here are pretty ambivalent towards politics, but those that I have discussed them with usually mention Farenheit 9/11 at some point.
but those that I have discussed them with usually mention Farenheit 9/11 at some point.
That’s too bad because it’s a pretty horrible film. Much like most of his works except for maybe Roger & Me. Moore is a buffoon. Okay enough, the Lakers are coming on now . . .
In my experience people in Russia considered F911 to be “Black PR” and blew it off.
I didn’t see Sicko, but I agree with Sean about Michael Moore. Even when in general I’m on his side with respect to Bush, health care, guns, the auto companies, and so on, his films–despite some great moments–are tendentious and much too manipulative.
PS considering all the ill-thought-out conspiracy theories lots of Americans believe about Russia, I do not see why it is so offensive that many Russians believe ill-thought-out conspiracy theories about the United States.
PS considering all the ill-thought-out conspiracy theories lots of Americans believe about Russia, I do not see why it is so offensive that many Russians believe ill-thought-out conspiracy theories about the United States.
Probably because the former is born from ignorance, and not reinforced regularly by senior members of the US government. The latter is too born from ignorance, but actively encouraged by senior members of the Russian government.
When have Russian government officials endorsed conspiracy theories about the US?
When have Russian government officials endorsed conspiracy theories about the US?
This springs to mind:
FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev submitted a report to President Vladimir Putin stating that a number of major medical centers in the West - the recipients of biological samples from Russia - were involved in a program for developing ‘genetic and biological weapons’ against the Russian population.
OK, you got me there.
Tim:
A group of us US of A Patriots have this blog called La Russophobe. We really hate those Russians. We’d like to invite you to join us. You sound just like us. Cool, no? Let us know if you’re interested. OK?
Kimberly
Am I the only person who thinks the name “Kim Zigfeld” just screams “I’m a red-hot sex monster who will rock you sweet all night long, come and take me and we can do the ooh-ah and the woo-woo and the woot-woot on the bearskin rug, hubba-hubba”?
Yes, I think you probably are.
Oh, darn.
Chris: yes, you are.
…all the ill-thought-out conspiracy theories lots of Americans believe about Russia…
Aside from speculation about Litvinenko and Politkovskaya, what conspiracy theories are you talking about?
Meanwhile, in addition to Patrushev’s fantasies about “genetic and biological weapons,” I can recall his past public speculation about Peace Corps volunteers in Russia being spies (as he kicked them all out of the country), the latest nonsense about the British Council (right, I’m sure they were putting subversive messages in their language textbooks), not to mention all of the nonsense this election season about an impending color revolution in Russia (which, admittedly, some of Putin’s inner circle may actually believe).
Here are the crucial differences between the conspiracy theories circulating in the West about Russia and those circulating in Russia about the west:
- Western conspiracy theories are:
* Speculation about actual crimes committed; and
* The narrative of those theories suggests only that the Russian government (or certain figures therein) targets people who are its “enemies” in especially harsh and lawless ways (I’m not saying I agree with those theories, but that’s what they boil down to).
- Russian conspiracy theories are:
* Speculation about things which have not actually happened; and
* The narrative of those theories tends to suggest a coordinated effort by “the West” to destroy or threaten Russia’s whole way of life (”they want to destroy the stability we have created through hard work, because they need a weak Russia”).
Anyway, that’s how I see it, but I’m curious what you think, and especially what other conspiracy theories you think there are about Russia floating around in the States.
“Aside from speculation about Litvinenko and Politkovskaya, what conspiracy theories are you talking about?”
I was thinking of this one: Basaev and Khattab were employees of the FSB. Their incursion into Dagestan was part of a Russian provocation, which culminated in the apartment-building bombings, to start a second war in Chechnya. This is why they haven’t killed Basaev yet (this part of the theory has been amended). Dubrovka was an FSB provocation (Politkovskaya BTW argued, or rather asserted, this). So was Beslan.
Chris, I only heard the one about the high-rise apartments bombings being done by the FSB. From what I know, though, this story is of Russian provenance. Granted, some Westerners found it credible enough and wrote about it. But the main point is that there is no US official of a rank similar to Patrushev advocating his sort of theories with respect to Russia.
Yeah, the story is of Russian origin (Kagarlitsky was the principal diseminator). Few Westerners know enough about Russia to concoct it. But I have seen it appear in many a Western newspaper.
It’s also true that government officials in the US, with the possible exception of McCain, who isn’t really an official, aren’t talking about this stuff. Russia is not a main subject of interest for most Westerners. For parallels, one would probably have to look at stories about Muslims.
(Note that I have admitted defeat!
)
Chris, you are my hero. But I’ll still say this (because I wrote most of the comment already):
The authorities’ secretive behavior with respect to the investigation of the ‘99 bombings has invited all kinds of speculation, mainly by Russians. And I’ll be surprised if you can find many (any?) references to people “in the west” saying that Beslan and Dubrovka were FSB provocations - even in the Western media, and certainly you won’t find any officials saying this. I think what Politkovskaya actually complained about (and she was hardly alone in this) was official mishandling of both of those siege situations.
As for Basaev, it is not only (and not mainly) Western sources alleging that he was with the GRU, especially when he led a Chechen unit in Abkhazia. Now, he may have just been a mercenary, or he may have thought he was fighting a holy war even then. Or, he could have just been a Russian-backed provocateur who turned on his masters a few years later (that would hardly be unheard of - see also US support of the mujahedin in Afghanistan).
So, to the extent that Westerners repeat these things, it is more along the lines of Russians repeating things that are said in America such as “the Iraq oil was all about oil and profit for Halliburton” or “9/11 was an inside job.” That sort of echo doesn’t really bother me, either because some such stories contain grains of truth (as with the former) and have a perfect right to exist in the infosphere; or because they are so outlandish as to not be credible to more than a small number of people (as with the latter).
It is an entirely different matter for Russian officials to make up (as it seems to me) and publicize fantastical allegations about the US.
Also, these “conspiracy theories” about the ‘99 bombings, Basaev, etc., are like the Litvinenko / Politkovskaya allegations in the sense that they allege bad acts by Russian officials against their own people. This is quite different from the fearmongering that took place in the runup to the Duma elections about supposed western influence in Russia, alleging bad acts by Western governments against Russia.
You are right to mention McCain (I know his “K - G - B” line and his general hostility toward Russia was reported in the Russian press, and it’s too bad he feels the need to talk that talk, since if he’s elected - which is unlikely at best - it’s not as if he’ll be able to avoid working with Russia on at least some things), and I was sort of surprised to see Romney come across so harshly (and clearly pretty cluelessly) on Putin. But you don’t see acting officials (Rice, Gates, etc.) making those kinds of statements.
Anyway, sorry to beat a dead horse, but I do think the distinctions are important.
As no one can argue with Time’s choice for the Man of the year - let me go off-top a little.
First off-top.
——————————————
Tim wrote:
“… actively encouraged by senior members of the Russian government.
This springs to mind:
FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev submitted a report to President Vladimir Putin …bla-bla-bla”
===========================================
1. I’m sure, Tim that you can NOT provide Patrushev’s words, right? What sprang to your mind was
- “according to Kommersant’s sources …
…According to the publication, FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev submitted a report…
…According to the newspaper’s source, the report carried…”
Do you agree that Patrushev didn’t encourage such bullshit but rather it was Kommersant that spread it?
And in same text you could read real official words - “Health and Social Development Minister Mikhail Zurabov said he knew nothing of any specific instances of research into the work on biological weapons against Russians,”
Second off…
Let’s say that Patrushev really said what publication encouraged you to think.
But Tim, you know well how much Russians believe in offical faces. Ask anyone around you what he/she thinks about Patrushev.
Don’t read my answer now! Open this message after you asked your Russian contacts! :))
…….
- For all others I can give the answer that Tim will get right away. Patrushev’s words are not worth the salt you eat today :)))
Russians used to not to be encouraged by official statements - so only western experts could believe in such shit as
“Russian government officials endorsed conspiracy theories about the US”…
In fact the old Soviet rule said “If you hear that eggs are not good for you health - better run to the store and buy all left as most likely they will disappear soon”. For those who didn’t get the rule I give translation of this official endorsement “Soviet chicken don’t want to produce eggs so we need to explain to people why they won’t eat eggs anymore”….
PS.I might be absolutely wrong cause I don’t watch TV, don’t read “Правда” and as such I’m not a subject for endorsement :))
But in BBC’s “Have you say” about Putin’s award you can read ALL of the “endorsements” in one place…
Nah, Politkovskaya claimed to have interviewed somebody who claimed to have been part of the FSB Dubrovka plot. Le Monde took the thing and it became “Politkovskaya uncovered an FSB Dubrovka plot,” if memory serves. Both articles were on JRL back in the day.
Do you agree that Patrushev didn’t encourage such bullshit but rather it was Kommersant that spread it?
No.
http://www.vz.ru/society/2007/5/30/85151.html
“PS considering all the ill-thought-out conspiracy theories lots of Americans believe about Russia, I do not see why it is so offensive that many Russians believe ill-thought-out conspiracy theories about the United States.”
I agree that ignorance on both sides is equally offensive.
However I’m worried that while Americans never use Russian example to justify their shortcomings, Russians often point to the US to justify their own political failures.
For example, when I try to discuss any problems in Russian politics lately I get an almost automatic response. First a quick admission that yes, indeed such and such problems may indeed exist, immediately followed by a counter-charge that Americans have no right to lecture anybody about Democracy because they elected Bush in a highly questionable manner, because Bush and ‘real Democracy’ are not compatible, because Michael Moore said so (or something)… So ‘Putin’s Russia’ is not all that different from ‘Bush’s America’, they conclude. And they have no idea how stupid, ignorant and self-serving that sounds.
Because even if - for the sake of argument - I’d grant a basic premise that Bush is an idiot and ’stole’ the election, the reality remains that Bush elections produced a political shitstorm of almost unprecedented proportions in the US. Russians can’t possibly imagine the pitch of political passions and intensity of political struggle in the US during Bush (and Clinton too). Some pipsqueak like Kasparov causes a little trouble and huge majority of Russians cry sedition, join their ranks around Putin and welcome suppression of dissent and state control over the popular media.
And then they ask me about America and say wistfully that yes, of course it would be good to have two-party system, eventually. To which I say they have no idea how much shit they have to agree to eat before they get there. If they can’t stomach Kasparov’s antics, how can they ever produce a powerful opposition Party actively trying to undermine everything a sitting President is trying to do? But I don’t think it sinks in.
The relevance of Michael Moore and his ilk to present Russian politics is that it’s the same old sad story all over again. Russians always fall for some second-hand Western political theories, usually poisonous. Just like they fell for the marginal Marxist doctrine 100 years ago.
If they can’t stomach Kasparov’s antics, how can they ever produce a powerful opposition Party actively trying to undermine everything a sitting President is trying to do?
That’s easy, like in most places where two political parties dominate you have an “opposition” party that agrees with the ruling party in principle, but disagrees with the particulars of how to implement it. I don’t think that anyone can argue that the Democrats are really “trying to undermine” what Republicans want, or for that matter, the British Torys to Labor, the Germany’s Social Democrats to the Christian Democrats, Israel’s Labor to Kadima, or France’s Socialists to Sarkozy’s UMP. It seems pretty standard nowadays that the “opposition” party pretty much gives the party in power or the President (or even PM) in power what he wants. There is some initial resistance for sure, and sometimes the opposition might even stand firm on somethings, but overall the days of fierce political opposition in most democratic countries appear to be over, if it ever really existed. So we might as well not expect Russia to have anything more than a party system where the difference between siting parties are over minutia rather than in absolute principle.
Marxism was “marginal” in 1917?
Most “evolved” democracies, especially the parliamentary democracies, have enshrined the concept of the Loyal Opposition. And – at least since the crisis of socialism – major political parties tend to lean to the center. But it’s not necessarily the case, and it’s seldom the case on all issues. But what’s important is that the electorate feels it has the power to toss the incumbents out and replace them, for whatever reason, including ideology, competence, ethics or whatever. What’s needed therefore is a virtuous system permitting the opposition to thrive and build for the future. Putin claims from time to time to aspire to that. But it’s not clear you can do it by taking a conglomerate elite and doing one-potato-two-potato to distribute it amongst artificial parties. The truth is no matter how centrist parties have grown elsewhere, they generally have their own distinctive history and culture, such that citizens and party activists really do generally feel there is a difference, even if outsiders do not.
Totally unrelatedly, in the interest of “propping” both Doug Henwood and Peter Lavelle, I’d like to point out that the former’s radio interview with the latter is now up on the LBO radio archives (the Dec. 6 show): http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html
i called this one! i did! really! i didn’t tell anyone, but i did!
,em>I don’t think that anyone can argue that the Democrats are really “trying to undermine” what Republicans want, or for that matter, the British Torys to Labor, the Germany’s Social Democrats to the Christian Democrats, Israel’s Labor to Kadima, or France’s Socialists to Sarkozy’s UMP.
I fully agree with what you are saying here Sean, but up to a point I see this as a good thing. In the case of the UK, everybody is pretty much fed, watered, and in employment; infant mortality and life expectancy are as they should be; and generally, life is pretty good. I would love to see a small-government, libertarian party come to power in the UK, but in reality, so long as life is in general pretty good, all that is left for politicians to do is argue about the details. Nobody any more is going to argue for massive, sweeping changes as the idiotic socialists used to do in the 1970s and ’80s, as these ideas have been shown to lead to rack and ruin and have been repeatedly rejected by the electorate. So they’ll let the politicians fumble about with the details while leaving the major structure alone.
As I say, I’m not happy with the current government in the UK, and I won’t be happy with the future one. But it’s better than upheaval, economic collapse, or civil war, and the electorate largely understand this.
Rambling on, I suppose what I’m saying above is that politics in some countries has advanced to the point that everyone understands what works in terms of the major structures, life is generally good, and all that is left is to fight about the details. Viewed from some perspectives, it looks as though you don’t have a real opposition. I’m guessing if something like employment or life expectancy was to take a real nose-dive, an opposition would emerge PDQ.
Marxism was “marginal” in 1917?
Way off topic, but since you asked: yes, Marxism basic tenets were completely disproven by the events of WWI. Remember, ‘Proletarians of all lands’ were not supposed to shoot each other over Bourgeois squabbles. For a short time it did seem possible that the Second Socialist International would stand against rising militarism, but all the International Socialists quickly turned into Nationalists, pledged support for their own country mobilizations and proletarians went to shoot each other with gusto.
“…overall the days of fierce political opposition in most democratic countries appear to be over, if it ever really existed. So we might as well not expect Russia to have anything more than a party system where the difference between siting parties are over minutia rather than in absolute principle.”
Sorry, but this is extremely elastic approach, which can be extended to cover almost anything.
For example, recently Kasparov made a tour of American TV programs, drawing rave reviews with his ‘3-D chess’(?) explanations of Russians playing part in Middle East politics and manipulating oil markets.
I didn’t hear Kasparov himself taken to task for this, but recently I read Bukovsky interview with some Russian news anchor, where Bukovsky repeated basically the same allegations. The Russian anchorman put it straight: would Bukovsky pledge that if he were to become Russian President he will refuse to play part in Middle East for Russia political advantage? and would Bukovsky pledge to refuse to try to manipulate the world oil markets for Russia advantage? So Bukovsky, being an honest man, admitted he can’t pledge that. After that his opposition to Putin shrunk to discussion who was in KGB and who was a Dissident 30 years ago, i.e. minutiae.
Basically, Bukovsky couldn’t pledge to conduct different major policies than Putin. However, we all know that there would be a world of difference if Bukovsky were to become Russian President, even if major Russian policies wouldn’t change much. Perception of difference can a very big thing sometime.
…but overall the days of fierce political opposition in most democratic countries appear to be over, if it ever really existed.
I’ve recently finished a book on the rise and fall of the British Empire, and there is no doubt that for at least two centuries fierce political opposition existed in the UK. The political battles which went on back home as Britain grappled with her empire were impressive.
Many times I heard in the US (and not only from Naderites) that there is really not much difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and that, in essence, it doesn’t matter that much who wins the Presidency and/or Congress. True, the differences between these parties are not quite like the ones you find between hard-core libertarians and Marxists, but this does not mean that those differences are not important. Look at the year 2,000. The fact that it was Bush and not Gore who became the president made an enormous difference. Particular parties and particular individuals do matter.
“Way off topic, but since you asked: yes, Marxism basic tenets were completely disproven by the events of WWI. ”
Uh, no. The only one that was disproven was the rather small bit about the working class having (in every case) no country. In fact the mainstrean European Marxists (e.g. Kautsky) almost to a person supported their country in WWI, causing much horror among the Bolsheviks.
The Bolshies were in fact highly unorthodox Marxists and were regarded as such by their peers.
“The only one that was disproven was the rather small bit about the working class having (in every case) no country.”
But wasn’t that the only revolutionary ferment of Marxism? Take that out and the rest is a boring economics theory.
Boring if you’re not interested in sociology and economics.
Actually I think the best “refutation” of classical Marxism was the October Revolution itself.
db on December 22, 2007 8:27 am
ivanov said “Do you agree that Patrushev didn’t encourage such bullshit but rather it was Kommersant that spread it?”
No.
http://www.vz.ru/society/2007/5/30/85151.html
========================================
NO what?
Do you want to say it was Vzglyad rather than Kommersant? I don’t care who produced this b-shit.
But it was not Patrushev. End of story.
“Actually I think the best “refutation” of classical Marxism was the October Revolution itself.
I can’t disagree.
Candide:
“For example, when I try to discuss any problems in Russian politics lately I get an almost automatic response. First a quick admission that yes, indeed such and such problems may indeed exist, immediately followed by a counter-charge that Americans have no right to lecture anybody about Democracy because they elected Bush in a highly questionable manner, because Bush and ‘real Democracy’ are not compatible, because Michael Moore said so (or something)… So ‘Putin’s Russia’ is not all that different from ‘Bush’s America’, they conclude. And they have no idea how stupid, ignorant and self-serving that sounds.”
I find this observation very telling. Now an ordinary Russian is apparently immunized form taking advice, etc. (crap) from outside observers. Even if it is just a hologram of a rake — the normal response is to please fuck off. Stupid? I don’t think so, it’s just low level — immune system recognizes the sucker, recalls past experience, the rest as you say “automatic”.
Heh, see what happens to a Frenchman or Russian (or any foreigner) in the US who tries to criticize US politics.
The difference of course is that in the US we have vigorous public debate and endless tug-of-war between two powerful political parties and in Russia there is none of the above.
There was no vigorous public debate when I lived in the US. They wouldn’t even debate Nader.
Candide.
Do you really think that vigorous public debate and endless tug-of-war can help to find a right guy for the job?
Or this is just “regular” sale show between two political corporations? Herbalife style
I admit that this is a problem - not a single politician who could challenge Putin & Co with something really better and/or different in the whole Russia.
But debates just for debates because it’s democratic?
“But debates just for debates because it’s democratic?”
Yeah, and why bother having sex if you don’t plan to have chidren!?
On a serious note, I have huge problems with the idea of finding ‘a right guy’. That’s not the main purpose of democratic purpose. The main purpose is transparency and preservation of political freedoms.
Likewise, the main purpose of Russian democratic project is not finding someone better than Putin. Quite possibly, Putin was the ‘right guy’ at the right time. The main purpose is to institute the peaceful transition of state power between rival factions. In that Russia still has a long way to go.
“The main purpose is to institute the peaceful transition of state power between rival factions.”
BTW, just as a metter of intellectual history, when does this notion (that “democracy” means “peaceful transition of power” or, alternatively, “pluralism of power groups”) emerge? I can’t recollect it being enunciated before relatively recently, but I may have missed it, since my knowledge of the history of political thought is very sketchy.
I dunno about intellectual history. Just makes sense to me. Considering that democratic process is not all that better (and sometimes even worse) than other political systems in selecting the best qualified leaders, it doesn’t make sense to extol Democracy as a perfect system. What Democracy is good for is not putting the best men in the office but ‘throwing the bums out’. So it works mostly by trial and error, like a creeping revolution. Authoritarian and dictatorial political system can produce very smart leaders but fail to generate healthy political turnaround and eventually become stagnant and ossified. Their revolutiona are few and far between but also very destructive, because they don’t develop ways to transfer power.
So Democracy only makes sense not as a managerial system but as ‘the way of life’.
What Democracy is good for is not putting the best men in the office but ‘throwing the bums out’.
Democracy is the best and only method by which individual freedom and liberty can be guaranteed. Note that democracy does not always guarantee individual freedom and liberty, which is why individual freedom and liberty should be the ends, and democracy merely the means and not an end in itself. But any other method other than democracy guarantees that individual freedom and liberty will be severely curbed or abolished altogether.
This is where I think the west has gone wrong with its promotion of democracy, as the flaws in democracy are there for all to see and many don’t see it as being an end which is particularly desired, let alone and end worth fighting for. I worry about the state of democracy in Russia more than the state of democracy in the USA because individual freedom and liberties are in far greater shape (with ample room for improvement) in the latter than the former.
[…] and Revolutionaries is, for some, a rather unlikely figure: Vladimir Putin. Time already ignited insult and outrage in December when it had the gumption to name Putin its Person of the Year. (The hawks in Washington […]