May
2
Consequences for Caricatures
May 2, 2008 | 300 Comments
I stumbled across Shaun Walker’s “No Laughing Matter: Cartoons and the Kremlin” while perusing Kompromat.ru. I only realized after a few minutes that the article was originally published in the Independent and translated for InoPressa.ru (interestingly without the above caricature).
No laughing matter indeed. As noted Russian cartoonist Mikhail Zlatkovsky tells Walker, what was once permitted under Gorbachev and Yeltsin is taboo under Putin. Zlatkovsky’s satires of the vozhd’ abruptly came to an end after Putin’s inauguration in May 2000. It was then that his editor at Literaturnaya gazeta informed him, “Misha, we’re not going to draw Putin any more. The young lad is very sensitive.” Zlatkovsky’s drawings of Putin haven’t appeared in the press since. And soon after that neither did his and many other cartoonists’ satires of ministers, Kremlin aids, Chechnya, and military brass. Even a drawing of Patriarch Alexy II “prompted a phone call from the patriarchate and a strong request never to draw him again.”
Zlatkovsky tells Walker that while there is no official censorship, there is “the censorship of the fire safety inspectorate; or the censorship of the tax police.” Bureaucratic revenge may be softer, but it is just as effective, if not more so, than good old fashion repression. The result, according to Walker is that “Many cartoonists have given up, finding other work, and newspaper editors prefer to err on the side of caution and not publish cartoons at all.” I would guess that this is exactly what those in power hoped.
Therefore it is no surprise that yet again Freedom House has labeled Russia’s press “not free.” There does, however, seem to be a twinkle of light in the darkness. According to Izvestiia, young Robert Shlegel got a finger waging by senior United Russia officials for introducing the media law amendment. One of United Russia’s four factions, 4 November, released a statement saying, “Oversight and law enforcement organs already have sufficient opportunities to put an end to the activities of unscrupulous journalists without jeopardizing the freedom of the mass media.” (Yes, there are four official factions in United Russia. They officially constituted themselves at their party congress two weeks ago. Who knew?) Basically, 4 November thinks that the amendment is redundant. Whether their opposition and Shlegel’s shaming will have any impact on the voting of future readings is uncertain and probably unlikely. Given how widely the amendment hit the international press, I’m sure this is all posturing. After all, the law’s first reading passed unanimously minus one. Boris Reznik of United Russia cast the lone dissenting vote. Um, 4 November members, where were you?
Popularity: 12% [?]
Comments
300 Comments so far
Remember, remember the 4th of November
As of old, to find the best examples of free Russia thought one must look abroad. Sad, sad, sad…
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
So how come I see caricature of Putin and Medvedev in the press all the time?
”So how come I see caricature of Putin and Medvedev in the press all the time?”
Cos they are indeed there, and I have seen loads of them too.
Then perhaps I have been led astray . . .
”Then perhaps I have been led astray . . .”
You’d see them in newspapers and stuff sometimes, at least the last time I was there, 2 years ago. However the thrust of your article is entirely correct. The ‘censorship of the Fire Inspectorate’. Indeed!:-) And also Kukli was scrapped pretty quickly after it lampooned Putin as being Berezovsky’s Burratino.
“So how come I see caricature of Putin and Medvedev in the press all the time?”
Apparently not Zlatkovsky’s caricatures, as the article makes clear. What you see must be mild & diluted, ‘velvet gloves’ versions.
Is there anything in today’ Russian TV equivalent to the Saturday Night Live viciously funny sketches of whoever the current US president happens to be? Or the equivalent of Jon Stewart’s treatment of first Clinton and now Bush? (There are many other examples, but these two should suffice.)
Some of the sketch comedy shows can be viciously funny in attacking politicians and bureaucrats in general, but not the President in particular.
“What you see must be mild & diluted”
Does Putin with blood-dripping fangs wearing a Star of David count as “mild and diluted”?
I love how you think you know what I’ve seen. Csn you tell me what I had for breakfast too?
“Then perhaps I have been led astray . . .”
Honestly, since you are a lefty (like me), I think you are prone to expecting the worst of governments (or anybody in power), and so pick up on stuff like this and magnify it.
if that one is Mikhail Zlatkovsky’s caricature – I didn’t get it
Also “freedom” of Gorby and Yeltsin was not a freedom at all. These guys just didn’t have means to “control” the process.
“Is there anything in today’ Russian TV equivalent to the Saturday Night Live viciously funny sketches of whoever the current US president happens to be? Or the equivalent of Jon Stewart’s treatment of first Clinton and now Bush? (There are many other examples, but these two should suffice.)”
Not that I know of. In print you can find, for example, a recent Zavtra article (current issue? it’s on their website) on the opening of the “monument to Yeltsin’s liver.”
I know I’ve mentioned this before a billion times, but when Western people and Russians catering to them talk about the “opposition media,” what they usually mean is the “pro-Western, liberal opposition media,” not the KPRF or ethnonationalist press, which are the voices of Medvedev/Putin’s actual opposition.
Chris, you wrote:
“Honestly, since you are a lefty (like me), I think you are prone to expecting the worst of governments (or anybody in power), and so pick up on stuff like this and magnify it.”
Maybe by know you realize how funny this would sound to an anti-left American conservative who believes that Big Government is an evil invention of the Left. They distrust of government is a virtue and accuse the left of both wanting to expand government and trusting government too much.
By the way, I think that an attitude of healthy skepticism toward government (any government) is a good thing. Of course, skepticism and cynicism are not the same thing.
For what is worth, I think there is something wrong if the TV media in a given country is either too shy or simply not allowed to mock its current leader through biting satire (even if done in a tasteless and unfair manner).
“Does Putin with blood-dripping fangs wearing a Star of David count as “mild and diluted”?
I love how you think you know what I’ve seen.”
Don’t attack me personally, disprove the article. Prove that Zlatkovsky is being published in Russia.
Incidentally, where did you see Putin with fangs? On the internet or in proper Russian publication? And what were the consequences for those who published this?
oy, I always do that, not closing the blockquote properly!!
I’d complain about not having a preview option, but I haven’t taken the time to put one on my site either, so I shan’t judge.
Chrisius Maximus,
“Honestly, since you are a lefty (like me), I think you are prone to expecting the worst of governments (or anybody in power)”
LOL!
That must be the reason why you repudiate free market reforms of the 90-s and approve of Putin imposing controls over all aspects of life in Russia.
Right?
“Incidentally, where did you see Putin with fangs? On the internet or in proper Russian publication? And what were the consequences for those who published this?”
I’m going by memory here, but I’m pretty sure it was in Duel (paper). I have no idea if there were any consquences. I doubt it. The Communists print stuff like this all the time.
“Leftists are necessarily Statists.”
What leftists (generally) believe is that power (public or private) should be made accountable to the population and serve it.
“They distrust of government is a virtue and accuse the left of both wanting to expand government and trusting government too much.”
All the US leftists I ever knew thought the government was evil, sometimes absurdly so.
Seriously CM, if you want to get out of the hole, stop digging.
“All the US leftists I ever knew thought the government was evil, sometimes absurdly so.”
That must be Rev. Wright you were talking to.
There was also this interesting article at Radio Liberty: Russia – Will Political Satire Survive Kremlin Hit List?
Zlatkovsky’s cartoons are being published in Russia, of course. Here are some pages from a book published in february. No explicit Putin, though. And while I am going on, here is an interesting interview with the other author of the book, Viktor Shenderovich. He seems to confirm Putin’s “sensitivity” thing.
“Seriously CM, if you want to get out of the hole, stop digging.”
What are you talking about?
“That must be Rev. Wright you were talking to.”
As far as I can tell, Wright’s opinions are pretty standard religious radical left.
Thanks, Kalle, for the tip
“Zlatkovsky’s cartoons are being published in Russia, …..with the other author of the book, Viktor Shenderovich.”
That’s explain everything. I mean now I understand why Zlatkovsky’s cartoons are so boring.
You see it’s not enough to dislike/hate something/someone. For caricature most essential element is – yes – humor/joke.
Looks like Zlatkovsky doesn’t know the basic difference between satire and political plakat. Same problem with Shenderovich.
And another 5 kopeek – I don’t think that same culture of caricature (and political in particular) exists in Russia.
So what you are trying to find – just a black cat in the dark room. And keep in mind – the cat is not there yet
Ivanov: I don’t think that same culture of caricature (and political in particular) exists in Russia.
Hm? Same as what?
I personally find Shenderovich quite the opposite of boring. And Putin agrees with me, I think. Otherwise Shenderovich would still be on NTV with Kukly.
“As far as I can tell, Wright’s opinions are pretty standard religious radical left.”
‘Radical’ being the key word here.
Kalle.
“Same” – as one can find in any “western” newspaper or magazine. With funny graphics, funny text. Zlatkovsky doesn’t make me even smile.
Kukly was popular mainly because of their “heroes” – drunk, silly and as such – funny. Listen to Shenderovich now is same as watching Petrosyan’s “Anshlag” (Петросян, “Аншлаг”).
I think – due to historical “traditions” – anekdotes are playing same role as caricatures in the West. I mean – political ones.
I understand that this is a matter of taste. But if this is the case – could you explain to me the humor of the head picture?
“All the US leftists I ever knew thought the government was evil, sometimes absurdly so.”
Maybe the US government, Chris. US leftists have a knee jerk reaction against anything the US government does, regardless of whether is a Democrat or Republican sitting in the White House. On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of US leftist that were ga-ga over Fidel Castro and kept on excusing the overwhelming expansion of state in all aspects of Cuban society. Maybe because I’m older than you, but I also met a dissapointingly large number of US leftists that were fans of Mao and his government. And nowadays it is not rare to find US leftists who are fans of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez’s main accomplishment was to change the constitution to make an already strong presidency even stronger and to expand the size of an already bloated and inefficient goverment bureaucracy.
(Many Venezuelans have a nickname for foreign–especially Americans–fans of Chavez that visit Venezuela. They call them PSFs, Pendejos Sin Fronteras, which can be translated as “Dumbasses Without Borders” or something like that.)
In any event, Chris, if you would have said anarchists instead of leftists I would have agreed with you.
Chrisius Maximus,
Since we are on the subject, what is the radical Left anti-thesis of Gov’t? For example, Conservatives extoll the Free Market. Which idea do the Left radicals put forth?
The best I understand the positive message in the Rev. Wright ramblings, it’s that ultimately blacks need to take enough power so nobody can hurt them, and universal happiness will ensue. Which is not so far from the idea of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ as a pre-requisite for all Governments to disappear.
So is it still about some form of ‘dictatorship of the aggrieved masses’, or were there any new developments?
Ivanov: Listen to Shenderovich now is same as watching Petrosyan’s “Anshlag” (Петросян, “Аншлаг”).
I completely disagree. On the other hand, I have never been able to endure more than a couple of minutes of Anshlag, so I really cannot give a qualified opinion on it. But Shederovich’s Plavlenyy syrok is just unbelievably funny.
could you explain to me the humor of the head picture?
Not really. I didn’t draw it either.
Ivanov, I’m sure you know that it’s very hard to articulate why a person finds a particular cartoon or caricature funny. It’s sort of like telling someone, “I don’t like this song, can you explain it to me why you love it so much?”
I see a New Yorker cartoon and explode with laughter and can hardly wait to show it to someone else. Sometimes, though, I discover that the cartoon I found so hilarious the person sitting next to me simply doesnt get it. And sometimes it’s the reverse, a cartoon others find funny simply leave me indifferent.
Sorry about picking on you, Chris. You wrote:
“What leftists (generally) believe is that power (public or private) should be made accountable to the population and serve it.”
Isn’t that something that the conservative right also believes? That is, your words apply to both the right and the left. There is nothing particularly leftist in what you said. In the private realm, the Right would say that the free market, among other things, serves as a accountabiltiy mechanism. If the population is not being served a private enterprise would go under.
But Shederovich’s Plavlenyy syrok is just unbelievably funny.
Might be I’m just getting old…
“could you explain to me the humor of the head picture?”
Not really. I didn’t draw it either.
Kalle, but do you find it funny?
“Isn’t that something that the conservative right also believes? That is, your words apply to both the right and the left. There is nothing particularly leftist in what you said. In the private realm, the Right would say that the free market, among other things, serves as a accountabiltiy mechanism.”
I will make an attempt at a coherent answer to this good question, despite having woken up three hours before my planned time after havinh slept only three hours (jetlag is a killer).
First, I think we just for the sake of simplcity limit ourselves here to the use of the terms “left” and “right,” which are fuzzy to begin with, in their more-or-less contemporary uses in the United States and Western Europe and limit them to their usual economic sense. “Right” also includes the “far right,” which is not about accountability to the population at all, except insofar as it overlaps with populism (here’s that fuzziness again), and it also includes Straussianism, which isn’t about accountability at all but is roughly comparable to Leninism in its belief in the necessity of an enlightened vanguard to lead the benighted masses. Also, “right” in the US has an overlap with the Evangelical community, who aren’t about accountability either.
Leaving this aside, I think you are correct regarding the shared assumptions of both left and right, which I would guess is the result of them both being products of the Enlightenment experience (the rebellion against autocracy and feudalism, roughly) and subsequent history. That is, both leftists and rightists see unaccountable accumulations of power as being undesirable. The primary difference is where they see the main danger — from accumulations of private or public power. A leftist tends to see private power (the wealthy or large businesses, the state being seen as a mechanism for pursuing the interests of private power — “the state is the arm of the ruling class,” to speak in Marxist — and so have a tendency to want to strengthen the state in order to limit private power. Whereas a rightist tends to see the state as being the greatest threat, and so believes that private power should be stengthened in order to limit the state.
This is just early morning pulling ideas out of my butt of course.
“So is it still about some form of ‘dictatorship of the aggrieved masses’, or were there any new developments?”
I don’t think anybody believes this except for a few leftover Leninist sects with no more than 100 members total, if that.
“Maybe the US government, Chris. US leftists have a knee jerk reaction against anything the US government does, regardless of whether is a Democrat or Republican sitting in the White House.”
True.
“On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of US leftist that were ga-ga over Fidel Castro and kept on excusing the overwhelming expansion of state in all aspects of Cuban society.”
Sure, this is because they (usually, not always) see the US has the primary threat, and therefore anything that limits the power of the US is good. As I said above, Castro is seen by (many) leftists as a limiting force on the power of the US government, which they believe is the arm of the US wealthy classes.
“In any event, Chris, if you would have said anarchists instead of leftists I would have agreed with you.”
Well anarchists are a particularly purist subset of leftists…
““Maybe the US government, Chris.”
They don’t tend to like Russia very much either…
The primary difference is where they see the main danger — from accumulations of private or public power. A leftist tends to see private power (the wealthy or large businesses, the state being seen as a mechanism for pursuing the interests of private power — “the state is the arm of the ruling class,” to speak in Marxist — and so have a tendency to want to strengthen the state in order to limit private power. Whereas a rightist tends to see the state as being the greatest threat, and so believes that private power should be stengthened in order to limit the state.
I think that it is safe to say that while both leftists and righists rhetorically decry the state to garner popular support, to date none has ever dismantled the nation state as a means of political organization and power. In fact, historically both left and right governments have strengthened rather than weakened the state and its pastoral control over its citizens life. This is the hallmark of modernity.
I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market. They have only limited it in areas that they think need privatizing–ie social welfare, etc–and deregulation, but I don’t think that anyone can argue that governments are not intimately connected to their respected economies whether it is through fiscal economic management, military for the protection of its economic interests, or through laws. Only anarchists and libertarians want to dissolve the state, but they are hopelessly utopian.
Most of the right actually never criticize the state i.e. it as the monopolization of force. Quite the contrary actually. They target the “government” as the problem. And “government” is merely a euphemism for social welfare and other state mechanisms that strive to redistribute or regulation wealth.
The difference between right and left when it concerns the state (and I think you essentially mean this) is that they see the function of the state differently and use its mechanisms as such.
“Well anarchists are a particularly purist subset of leftists…”
Absolutely not. They’re the true extreme right-wing. They have been allied with Leftists in the past, but ideologically, they’re far right.
By the way, the kids who throw bricks at Nike stores while wearing Nikes . . . not real anarchists.
“Absolutely not. They’re the true extreme right-wing. They have been allied with Leftists in the past, but ideologically, they’re far right.”
Flabbergasted.
“I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market.”
I’m talking about ideology, not reality. Reagan’s rhetoric for instance was very pre-free market, but his actions well no not really.
Off to run to work!
“Absolutely not. They’re the true extreme right-wing. They have been allied with Leftists in the past, but ideologically, they’re far right.”
Flabbergasted.
“I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market.”
I’m talking about ideology, not reality. Reagan’s rhetoric for instance was very pre-free market, but his actions well no not really.
Off to run to work!
“I don’t think anybody believes this except for a few leftover Leninist sects with no more than 100 members total, if that.”
So what do the rest of your radical Left friends propose as an alternative to the gov’t they don’t trust? Obviously they are not free marketeers, and as you say they are not ‘leftover Leninists’, so what do they stand for?
Only anarchists and libertarians want to dissolve the state
Libertarians don’t want to dissolve the state, they want to reduce the state to a minimum. They are usually overly utopian at times, but generally I prefer the libertarian stance as a starting point and work my way towards the centre than starting with a gigantic, bloated government and hoping a right-wing party will do anything about it.
I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market.
For once we agree. I don’t buy this idea either. Even Maggie oversaw the enlargement of state, and she was supposedly the most free-market of the lot. The best an advocate of a small state can hope for is that the growth of the state is limited under such-and-such an administration, but in fairness it is pretty much a lost cause.
“So what do the rest of your radical Left friends propose as an alternative to the gov’t they don’t trust? Obviously they are not free marketeers, and as you say they are not ‘leftover Leninists’, so what do they stand for?”
Did I say they were my friends?
Why don’t you ask one? He runs this blog.
“Libertarians don’t want to dissolve the state, they want to reduce the state to a minimum”
Well, there are libertarians and there are Llllllllibertarians (anarcho-capitalists). You know, “the police should be disbanded and replaced by private security firms,” that sort of thing.
You know, “the police should be disbanded and replaced by private security firms,” that sort of thing.
True, there are degrees of libertarians. The ones I hang about with online are those who believe the state has a vital role to play, especially in the upholding of property rights, law and order, etc.
On the same subject, I always found it rather amusing that most of the anarchists I have come across look as though they would starve to death as soon after the state which supplied their dole check collapsed.
“On the same subject, I always found it rather amusing that most of the anarchists I have come across look as though they would starve to death as soon after the state which supplied their dole check collapsed.”
True, true…
Although to be fair pretty much all of us would starve rapidly in the event of a state collapse (except for Mike, who would rule the barren postapocalyptic wastelands a la Mad Max, given that he is such a badass and all).
“Why don’t you ask one? He runs this blog.”
He’s not the one who made the statement that all Lefties are “prone to expecting the worst of governments”. That was quite a revelation to me.
An Abraham Lincoln quote:
‘The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their individual capacities.’
This, by the way, was lifted from Norman Geras’s recent profile of Lane Kenworthy who runs a blog called “Consider the Evidence”. Here is the link for one of his post on inequality in the US:
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/04/27/the-cost-of-rising-inequality/
This, by the way, was lifted from Norman Geras’s recent profile of Lane Kenworthy who runs a blog called “Consider the Evidence”.
I hope you’re gonna be paying attention to next Friday’s Normblog profile.
Tim – I hope you’re gonna be paying attention to next Friday’s Normblog profile.
Huh? You? Really? Wow! Seriously?
Huh? You? Really? Wow! Seriously?
Well, I filled out the questionnaire at the weekend, so if not this coming Friday then shortly afterwards.
I consider this as my having truly arrived as a blogger.
I consider this as my having truly arrived as a blogger.
Absolutely. You’ll be in much revered company. Geras’s Friday profiles are legendary. If of interest to the uninitiated, here’s one he did on himself: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/07/the-normblog–2.html
Congrats, Tim! Indeed I’ll be paying attention to Norm’s Friday profile until yours comes up. I visit Normblog about once or twice a month. Plenty of interesting stuff. I have to admit, though, that by neither being a Brit nor a UK resident he also has plenty of stuff that I don’t know anything about.
Tim — Here you are: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/05/the-normblog–1.html
Perry de Havilland as PM? Gulp.
Congratulations, Tim! I was dumbfounded to discover that I actually disagree with many of your positions.
I was dumbfounded to discover that I actually disagree with many of your positions.
Kolya – didn’t you realize you and I are the only center-left guys here? This is where the loony left and the loony right meet to plot the future of the world.
Maybe center-left…. I have a hard time with those labels because I often surprise people who thought they already know what I would think about this or that. I guess I don’t mind being classified as someone from the left as long as it is clear that this has nothing to do with Marxism. In the US I have never voted for a Republican and think most Democrats are too conservative. On the other hand, I think that the Bolshevik take-over was a monumental tragedy that at the cost of millions of lives propelled Russia back instead of forward. Just like I cannot respect anyone who thinks highly of Hitler, I cannot respect anyone who thinks highly of Stalin. But Stalin is too easy of a target. I cannot understand how some folks still think highly of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Che, and Fidel.
Trotsky was a really good writer. I’ll give him that.
By “Marxism” I think you mean “Marxism-Leninism.” In Marxism you have people as different as Stalin and Erich Fromm and Eduard Bernstein (and apparently the Dalai Lama).
Kolya – Apologies. I was being mildly facetious, not seeking to dole out labels. In all seriousness, I think many of the old labels have decayed into meaninglessness. The fact that Tim, a self-described libertarian, counts Geras and Kamm among bloggers he admires says a lot. Kamm is regarded as a leftist on some issues and a fevered rightist on others. Note my use here of the passive voice, to duck having to specify who calls him what. But the one thing Kamm, Geras, Nick Cohen and others in their tribe are not is libertarian. They are fine writers, fierce rhetoricians and — perhaps of some passing interest to Tim — among the most effective critics around of the other tribes of the left, old and new.
There’s a particularly apt piece on Kamm’s blog currently: http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/more-on-miliban.html. It’s part of a diatribe against the late Ralph Miliband, father of the UK’s foreign secretary. Even if you’ve never heard of the guy — an enormously influential Marxist theorist who, alas, regarded Pol Pot as a nice fellow — the attack is good fun to read.
I mention all this because I sense that this is a form of political entertainment somewhat peculiar to the UK. Tim and I follow different teams, but we enjoy the same thrills and spills, and admire particular star players on both sides.
“Dictatorship of the Proletariat” . . . sure, sounds peaceful and reasonable enough.
Deep, man,
“Even if you’ve never heard of the guy — an enormously influential Marxist theorist who, alas, regarded Pol Pot as a nice fellow — the attack is good fun to read.”
****
Awhile back, Pavlovsky made some rather ill informed comments about Miliband and his family:
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@389.b5DJbzTTASp@.77480649/8093
Refer to last point of post 2806.
“By “Marxism” I think you mean “Marxism-Leninism.””
You are mostly correct, Chris. But I also meant to include Karl Marx himself. For example, I’m all for a more egalitarian society, but I’m against the abolition of private property. As many people wrote, Marx probably would have been horrified by what was done in his name. This does not mean, though, that his own writings were correct. His fatal flaw was that he did not really account for human nature. For all this talk of “scientific materialism”, there is nothing scientific about Marxism.
“In Marxism you have people as different as Stalin and Erich Fromm and Eduard Bernstein (and apparently the Dalai Lama).”
Maybe the Dalai Lama is a Marxist (never heard of it), but perhaps he simply expressed some sympathy for socialist/egalitarian ideas. Marxism is a subset of socialism. I think Eduard Bernstein was a good guy who was too empirically minded for most hard-core Marxist. They disowned him as a Marxist for showing that Marx was wrong about his predictions of the imminent downfall of capitalism. Too bad it was not Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, but Leninism that became dominant among the Marxist.
————–
FH, thanks for your interesting comment. You wrote:
“Kolya – Apologies. I was being mildly facetious, not seeking to dole out labels.”
No problem. I was aware of your lighthearted tone and was going to reply the same way. Then I got busy and by the time I actually replied my mood was a bit different. Sorry about that.
“I think many of the old labels have decayed into meaninglessness.”
I agree completely. I’m certainly uncomfortable with those labels, although I still use them because they are still part of our vocabulary and I’m lazy.
Two or three months ago I read Normblog’s profile of Oliver Kamm and saved the following quote:
///Normblog question: Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you’ve ever changed your mind?
Kamm’s reply: Realising that the crucial distinction in politics is not between Left and Right, as I had once tribally thought, but between the defenders and the enemies of an open society.///
Slice and dice it as you will, Marxism/Communism is inherently statist, subjugating the individual to the collective. Of course, the interest of the collective is always decided by a small group of people who control everything through the organs of the state, and can make and impose their decisions on individuals through the use of force and violence.
It’s a great system if you’re one of the elites – controlling, determining, and dictating the needs of the collective. This power invariably corrupts, usually quite quickly. Arguing over which brand, or strain is superior, is simply asking which poison should we take.
“Maybe the Dalai Lama is a Marxist (never heard of it), but perhaps he simply expressed some sympathy for socialist/egalitarian ideas.”
He called himself one recently, though I think you are probably right that used it simply as a synonym for “socialist” (linky: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/I-am-a-Marxist-monk-Dalai-Lama/263190/)
I’m not a giant fan of Marx, but as a former professional philosopher it annoys me when people misrepresent his views (which you are not doing).
“Slice and dice it as you will, Marxism/Communism is inherently statist, subjugating the individual to the collective. ”
Except for that whole central abolishing the state part.
“Too bad it was not Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, but Leninism that became dominant among the Marxist.”
BTW, the reason for Leninism’s dominance was specfically the Russian Revolution. Uo to that point evolutionary Marxism was the primary form (like Kautsky).
Interesting Dalai Lama link, Chris. Thanks. I had no idea. Then, if I remember correctly, years ago I read that he met Mao and that for a short while was an admirer. Maybe I’m wrong about that, though.
You write:
“I’m not a giant fan of Marx, but as a former professional philosopher it annoys me when people misrepresent his views (which you are not doing).”
Oh, I don’t know about much about Marx or Marxism, so I could easily misinterpret him and his views. In any event, my problem is not with Marx, but with those individuals and parties who in the 20th Century shed so much blood while invoking his name. There was a quasi-religious or plainly religious quality in the bloody Marxist crusade. And, I have no doubt that (just like during the Crusades and the Jihads) many of those who shed blood on behalf of Marxism and those died fighting on behalf of Marxism were sincere believers.
–
I’m writing this with beer in hand during a quick lawn mowing break. My wife laughs saying that I probably never envisioned myself engaged in such a suburban activity. A very ratty lawn, but still a lawn….
Kamm’s reply: Realising that the crucial distinction in politics is not between Left and Right, as I had once tribally thought, but between the defenders and the enemies of an open society.
He says it’s the crucial distinction, but not of course the only one. And he nonetheless espouses what he calls “militant liberalism,” whatever that is.
But in general I find myself looking at things much as he does. Except on the subject of interventions abroad. But that’s for some other time.
Mike – Thanks for pointing out that ridiculous claim about David Milliband. Makes sense that it came from Pavlovsky. What a cynic.
Kolya and FH,
Many thanks for your comments, I have to admit I am chuffed as hell to have been on the Normblog Profile. It’s done my visit stats no harm at all, as well as polished my libertarian credentials.
I like Norm because he is an intelligent man who argues his points well without resorting to insults or malice, and I agree with him on most foreign policy issues if not too many domestic ones.
I like Kamm for similar reasons, mainy for his foreign policy commentary than his opinions concerning domestic issues, but what I really love about his writing is his encylopaedic knowledge of politics and modern history. He seems to have read, and be able to quote, almost every book written on every event or statesman of the 20th century, which makes him extremely difficult to argue with and allows him to easily deconstruct and argument by highlighting major factual errors. It is the sheer volume of historical and biographical works that he has read which IMO makes him so convincing.
1. We never got there, but we’ve all seen the extraordinary and inhuman damage caused by the intervening “socialist” period.
2. Even when we get to the “stateless” period, there will have to be someone coordinating and determining “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Call whatever you want, it’s still a state, it’s still in complete control, and it’s still subjugating the individual.
fh
You’re quite welcome.
I loathe when some people do a good deal to lead astray and-or discredit certain views that have validity.
Regarding Oliver Kamm: John Laughland and Alexander Cockburn are among two of the best of relatively well known British born pundits on foreign policy issues.
Regarding Oliver Kamm: John Laughland and Alexander Cockburn are among two of the best of relatively well known British born pundits on foreign policy issues.
Funnily enough, I came across both these people on Oliver’s site. He discusses Laughland’s work here, and Cockburn here when he highlights the latter’s professionalism by referring to his calling Christopher Hitchens “a truly disgusting sack of shit”.
It appears that Oliver does not agree with your assessment of the two men.
The second link above should be here.
Pardon me for disagreeing with Oliver.
I’m by no means the only one.
Hitchens has understandably disgusted a number of folks.
Dammit!! The second link above should be here.
Unlike Laughland and Cockburn, Kamm seems to propagandize the faulty (put mildly) claims of Bosnian Muslim nationalists and their necon and neolib backers.
This deceit includes playing down the earlier massacre of Serbs at Srebrenica by Bosnian Muslim nationalists. Perhaps over 3000 Serbs (many woman and children) perished in that instance.
Wiki’s spin on the more well known massacre is quite revealing. Saying that 7000-8000 Muslim males were slaughtered is vague. It can and as a matter of fact should include those killed as armed combatants and collateral damage.
In point of fact, Bosnia’s mass graves include many non-Muslims as well as Muslims killed by means other than summary execution.
Among others, kudos to Julia Gorin, David Petersen and Edward Herman for setting the record straight on all of this.
Slowly but surely the lies get debunked. Like the earlier bloated claims of 200,000 or more killed during the Bosnian Civil War and mass rapes in the tens of thousands.
“Even when we get to the “stateless” period, there will have to be someone coordinating and determining “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Call whatever you want, it’s still a state, it’s still in complete control, and it’s still subjugating the individual.”
Uh, the “state” here would be “the population.”
By the way, all societies strive to subjugate the individual. Those that do not tend to implode rapidly. There are a few models in Central Africa you may want to go experience.
“There was a quasi-religious or plainly religious quality in the bloody Marxist crusade. And, I have no doubt that (just like during the Crusades and the Jihads) many of those who shed blood on behalf of Marxism and those died fighting on behalf of Marxism were sincere believers.”
Oh certainly. I am firmly in the “Marxism-Leninism is a secularized form of Christianity” camp.
Saying that 7000-8000 Muslim males were slaughtered is vague.
No, it’s not. You have time and again been shown the UN report which details the primary evidence of the massacre excavated from the mass graves. Time and again you choose to ignore this evidence, and time and again you downplay the Serb massacre of Muslim males at Srebrenica.
“Time and again you choose to ignore this evidence, and time and again you downplay the Serb massacre of Muslim males at Srebrenica.”
I bet Mike would have been really outraged if it had been a massacre of middle-aged men who live with their momz, though.
“Edward Herman”
Herman has really fallen a long way. I thought he was very good in Maunfacturing Consent. Or maybe that was just Chomsky doing the work.
So Marx was a democrat? Everyone votes on everything? What a breakthrough, the man has been misread for a century and a half!
Chris Doss carries on as a troll for the deception of others. Unlike Edward Herman, Chris has never been in a postion to have “fallen a long way.” Where has Herman fallen?
That “report” doesn’t disprove the fact based points raised by others besides myself.
The involved mass graves comprise different ethnic groups killed at different times under different conditions (collateral damage, armed combatants and summary execution).
There’s no significant proof whatsover showing that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed. There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males. Some of the bodies dug up were later identified as Serbs killed during an earlier period. They were initially counted as victims of the more advertised Srebrenica massacre. Some of the Muslims said to have been killed at Srebrenica have been found to be quite alive and well. In sort, much remains unknown on the specfics.
It has already been established that the earlier accepted (by the not so well informed and-or dishonest) figures of 200,000 or more killed during the Bosnian Civil War and mass rapes in the tens of thousands was a hoax perpetuated by the same folks who carry on about Srebrenica in a misinformative way.
The lack of attention given to earlier Muslim crimes committed against Serbs in Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia is morally and factually flawed.
That “report” doesn’t disprove the fact based points raised by others besides myself.
Yes, it does. It shows this to be false:
There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males.
And this:
There’s no significant proof whatsover showing that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed.
And this:
There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males.
And this:
Some of the bodies dug up were later identified as Serbs killed during an earlier period.
You clearly haven’t read the report, which can only be deliberate on your part to avoid reaching the conclusion that you have fallen for, and been repeating publicly for years, a complete and utter fabrication of the most odious kind.
Not at all.
You clearly haven’t reviewed all of the matter pertaining to this issue.
You clearly haven’t reviewed all of the matter pertaining to this issue.
Nor have you, and most obviously, the UN report which I refer to.
Cite specifics contradicting the obvious:
The total mass graves comprise different ethnic groups killed at different times under different conditions (collateral damage, armed combatants and summary execution). All of the involved specifics have yet to be firmly established.
This explains why there’s no significant proof whatsover confirming that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica. There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males (a crime for sure). Some of the bodies dug up were later identified as Serbs killed during an earlier period. They were initially counted as victims of the more advertised Srebrenica massacre (as opposed to the earlier atrocity of Serbs by Muslims in the same town). Some of the Muslims said to have been killed at Srebrenica have been found to be quite alive and well. Once again, much remains unknown on the specfics.
It has already been established that the earlier accepted (by the not so well informed and-or dishonest) figures of 200,000 or more killed during the Bosnian Civil War and mass rapes in the tens of thousands was a hoax perpetuated by the same folks who carry on about Srebrenica in a misinformative way.
The lack of attention given to earlier Muslim crimes committed against Serbs in Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia is morally and factually flawed.
Anyone can write a “report.” You question the UN on other matter.
Cite specifics contradicting the obvious:
I have done so already. I previously stated that the report debunks what you said, and all you do have done is tediously repeat the same stuff verbatim.
“So Marx was a democrat? Everyone votes on everything? What a breakthrough, the man has been misread for a century and a half!”
Yes he was. Yes they do. And No, because this has been known by everyone who has bothered to study the subject. In fact it was a big problem for Soviet ideology.
Look, this is my field, what I studied in grad school for years. You are just plain wrong, and I have no further interest in discussing it, any more than I would be interested in talking about geology with someone who believes the Earth rests on elephants. I recommend reading a book. The Critique of the Gotha Programme is short and written for a lay audience.