Russia’s Salic Deficiency
By Sean at 12 January, 2009, 10:41 pm
The last two weeks, the Russian news may have been focused on the now yearly gas war. It’s over now and I will leave it to more competent minds sort out the winners and losers. Besides haggling over the price of 1,000 cubic meters of gas, the new year means a new round of speculation about Russia’s future. Especially, what might be in store for Russia’s power elite.
Some have been propagating the idea that a rift exists between Medvedev and Putin. Medvedev’s recent complaint that “the planned [anti-crisis] measures are being implemented more slowly than we expected” will certainly fuel that theory. But Putin agreed with Medvedev’s assessment and announced changes to speed up the bureaucratic process. So maybe it is better to say that there some working understanding between the two leaders. While there might not (or might) be a rift between Medvedev and Putin, the possibility of one as well as its potentially disastrous effects remains a constant specter of concern.
Nevertheless, the constant speculation about Putin’s and Medvedev’s relationship, not to mention the often repeated notion that Putin looks to come back to the Presidency, highlights the historical problem the Russian elite has had with succession. Simon Sebag Montefiore dealt with the “problem of succession” in a rather excellent article in the Sunday’s New York Times. As Montefiore notes, Russia’s behind-the-scenes wars of succession have always baffled observers. The lack of a heeded succession law has resulted in civil wars, pretenders, palace coups, bedroom assassinations, and in the Soviet period, the elite’s cannibalization. Moreover, the Russian elite’s propensity to cannibalize itself has lent to its inability to move from a class in itself to a class for itself. Instead, the reluctance to give up power to rival clans or to see potential successors as their future gravediggers has only perpetuated its feudal and clannish character. The transfer of power, let alone comprehensive reform of the system, has thus been condemned to coups, tsaricide, or revolution.
Given the last two, it is no wonder that in Russia any peep from “civil society” or pressure from below is met with fear and paranoia from above. Unlike elites in the West, the Russian elite has failed to realize that civil society is really an effective means rule and stability. Instead, the it rules through domination but without hegemony. Here, I’m reminded of a interesting passage from Gramsci’s “State and Civil Society” on why there was revolution in Russia but not in the West. I offer it for contemplation:
In Russia the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between the State and civil society, and when the State trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The State was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks: more or less numerous from one State to the next, it goes without saying–but this precisely necessitated an accurate reconnaissance of each individual country.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
FIRST to admit I had to look up “Salic.”
Happy Old New Year, SRB’ers!
I’ll apologize in advance for the long cut/paste below, but the English version of the article is not available online as far as I know (it was in a recent JRL), and it contains the most interesting example I’ve seen of some of the speculation Sean talks about above. Also, it would seem to demonstrate that such speculation is not merely (as some might allege) the wishful thinking of those in the West who wish Russia ill.
Pundit Piontkovskiy Revises Outlook for Medvedev vs Putin
Grani.ru (original Russian text is here)
January 7, 2009
Article by Andrey Piontkovskiy under the rubric “Politics”: “The Third February”
February. Get the ink and cry! Write of February sobbing uncontrollably, While the rumbling slush Burns with black spring…
Boris Pasternak. 1912
To go on speaking of the sterility and the impending historical doom of the economic and political system of Putinism is already becoming simply awkward. And besides what else can be added after the brilliant series of New Year’s articles on Ej.Ru. One’s lips close and the pen falls from one’s hands. Three tenors of domestic political commentary, not some lumpenized marginals but all top people who are competent, successful, and deeply professional, fundamentally careful thinkers, members of all kinds of chambers, and columnists of government newspapers, future ideologues of the Medvedev February revolution, fastidiously did in “little Hitler,” who for years people either spoke of only inrespectful tones or, following wise ancient tradition, did not utter His name at all except when necessary.
This is the second time in a short period that I have had to update my ratings of the Kremlin clans. By the way, in the future for brevity’s sake, I will call the “national kleptocrats” and the “global kleptocrats” the “bunkerparty” and the “February party,” respectively. So anyway, as of today I give scenario No 1 (a “bunker” victory) 49%, and scenario No2 (a “February” victory) — 51%. (Back on 29 December, the quotations were, as you remember — “bunker” — 70%, and “February” — 30%).
It was not the bel canto of the famous tenors that convinced me of the need for such a correction but the very fact of their common radical appearance that reflects, as do some other indirect signs, the apparently growing confidence of the leaders of the Kremlin “February party” in their own strength.
I expressed my attitude toward the “February” leaders quite clearly in the previous article. I consider them not less but more the petty thieves of the Chekist generation responsible for the economic, political, and above all moral catastrophe of post-Communist Russia.
All the same, all we can do now is observe the outcome of the conflict between the two groups of the Kremlin kleptocracy. There is nothing to discuss in the scenario of the “bunker” victory, and very soon there will be no one to discuss it either, except perhaps those who in their time freed from work therapy have been convicted under the new articles for “betraying the Motherland.” This is simply the short final chapter of Russian history.
But the “February” scenario contains both enormous risks and enormous opportunities. It will become the third February of Russian History after 1917 and 1991.
It is the third time in a row in the last century that an unsustainable political system is collapsing under its own weight. And twice it was stubbornly rebuilt on those very same principles of non-freedom, although each time it was dressed up in new ideological clothes. Hence twice February was not understood and twice its chance was missed.
How do its current architects see February? Measured criticism of the mistakes and abuses of the previous regime. Liquidation of the criminal Gunvor Company but not Millhouse. Disbanding of the Chemezov monster but not Nanotekhnologiya. Purging of the management at Gazprom and Rosneft, but not at Norilsk Nickel. No new elections in the next few years. This immature people cannot be trusted to elect the bosses in free and fair elections. They could not in 1996. They could not in 1999. And certainly they cannot today. And besides that, we have a legally elected president and Duma.
The very same television mugs who made the garments of the previous king will begin to fashion the St.Petersburg lawyer into Dmitriy the Liberator and Medvedev-Tskhinvali in one swoop. They will bring the priests with icons to him. They will put the naked man on a horse with a talking cross around his neck.
All this window dressing will come tumbling down in the first few days, gentlemen. It will make the unemployed of Siberia and the Urals vomit and want to rip out someone’s jaws. It would be better for us to contemplate together about how to help Medvedev play a short but prominent role in Russian history. To do what two other lawyers — Kerenskiy and Gorbachev — were unable to do: to bring the country to the Constituent Assembly and presidential elections while preserving social peace, law and order, and most importantly — the country itself.
Any purely economic measures without replacing the political system and restoring trust (or confidence) in the government and its institutions will not lead the country out of the existential crisis. Not only in our country but throughout the world, “doveriye” — trust, confidence (in English) — is now becoming a basic economic category.
No court coups will accomplish this task. But the removal of the “little Franco” (if I may be permitted to continue my colleague’s metaphor) can truly open the way to a Russian Moncloa Pact.
By the way, within the framework of this pact, the figures of the previous regime will be able to preserve their fortunes built up through back-breaking effort and even augment them in the future if they prove to be effective managers, but needless to say, on the condition that they voluntarily withdraw from Russia’s political life. Even for a country with such a wealth of natural resources, 18 years of shameless intercourse between money and power is too long a period of time.
It will be our third February. And there will not be a fourth. Let us talk it over a little and prepare for it in advance so that all of us are not made the foundation of the fourth vertical hierarchy of power.
Lyndon, first, thank you for the helpful “salic” link.
He may be in Russia, but how much of what Piontkovsky writes is grounded on inside knowledge of the power dynamics within the Russia government and how is based on speculation of the sort many people engage in (except that he gets published)? It’s a genuine question on my part. It’s also interesting that he writes all this in a fait accompli tone and yet in the beginning of the piece he says the odds for him to be correct are only 51 percent–a toss-up.
[Irrelevant aside: Piontkovsky uses the word "lumpenized." It's sort of amusing that the vast majority of times I read in English the word "lumpen" (or a derivative) the author is actually Russian. (I guess if I read more Marxist stuff this word will appear much more frequently in non-Russian contexts.)]
That’s a good question Kolya, and a constant problem I have with much of this kind of commentary. Rarely are there ever any names mentioned as to who belongs to which clan. Instead vague names are given to factions that point to their general position. Though interesting, I can’t help thinking that a lot of what Piontkovsky says is part speculation and a part wishful thinking.
FIRST to admit I had to look up “Salic.”
I only know the word due to being a Shakespeare buff and familiarity with the play “Henry V”. You’ll also find it spelled salique.
http://www.freelibrary.org/medieval/pharamond.htm
Bravo, Sean! you cerainly are starting New Year right!
That may be one of your best posts I read. Even Gramsci quote makes good sense.
Two notes.
Over? You kidding, Sean.
It’s just started really. Soon we’ll see the dead bodies. Real dead and politically dead. And both
Same question – why there was revolution in let’s say France but not in Russia? I guess this “revolution” method is same as asking why there is rain on the other side of the ridge. And answering – cause they are praying more often…
Just personal opinion. Nothing personal
In Russia the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between the State and civil society, and when the State trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed.
This is what I have been banging on about for a while on here: the US can survive, and has survived, severe crises because the foundations on which the nation is build are extremely strong. I don’t see the same solid foundations underlying Russia.
I didn’t know what “Salic” meant either. Good stuff, Sean.
This is what I have been banging on about for a while on here: the US can survive, and has survived, severe crises because the foundations on which the nation is build are extremely strong. I don’t see the same solid foundations underlying Russia.
Of course, geography and climate are of no import.
“Of course, geography and climate are of no import.”
Bingo!
because the foundations on which the nation is build are extremely strong. I don’t see the same solid foundations underlying Russia.
People see what they want to see. Here’s America ’s deceptions that have contributed to the sorry state America is in right now (by William Bonner and Addison Wiggin):
• That one generation can consume—and stick the next with the bill.
• That you can get something for nothing.
• That the rest of the world will take American IOUs forever—no
questions asked.
• That house prices will forever go up.
• That American labor is inherently more valuable than foreign labor.
• That the American capitalist system is freer, more dynamic, and
more productive than other systems.
• That other countries want to be more like America, even if it is
forced on them.
• That the virtues that made America rich and powerful are no
longer required to keep it rich and powerful.
• That domestic savings and capital investment are no longer necessary.
• That the United States no longer needs to make things for export.
The “foundations” are gone as far as I can see.
“This is what I have been banging on about for a while on here: the US can survive, and has survived, severe crises because the foundations on which the nation is build are extremely strong. I don’t see the same solid foundations underlying Russia.”
Wait a second here — Russia is far older than the US, and has survived crises greater than those the US has experienced.
Pseudo-Dima, unlike Tim, I don’t think the US is an unstoppable Juggernaut (“No One Can Stop the Juggernaut!!!!”), but neither is it some wussy Aunt May who is going to keel over at any moment.
(Marvel Comics references thrown in for benefit of Sean.)
Of course, geography and climate are of no import.
No, not really.
Pseudo-Dima, unlike Tim, I don’t think the US is an unstoppable Juggernaut (”No One Can Stop the Juggernaut!!!!”), but neither is it some wussy Aunt May who is going to keel over at any moment.
(Marvel Comics references thrown in for benefit of Sean.)
———————————————–
Chris: As bad doctors answer “An autopsy will show”, – to the question: “Doctor, what’s wrong with me?”
I sincerely hope you are right, nobody wants the USA to collapse, however with all the recent developments …. and the only solution that the Obama’a administration has come up with: “print more money” … who knows?
Wait a second here — Russia is far older than the US, and has survived crises greater than those the US has experienced.
Firstly, I don’t think that Russia has undergone any crisis worse than the US civil war.
Secondly, my point is that the US as a political entity has survived; it even has its original constitution intact. Russia simply reboots itself politically after each crisis and lurches on to the next.
“Firstly, I don’t think that Russia has undergone any crisis worse than the US civil war.”
C’mon. It’s own Civil War? The death of almost 30 million people in WWII? Four revolutions within a century of each other? The Time of Troubles? Complete overturning of the economic system twice in a single century?
C’mon nothing.
None of those which you list I would consider to be worse for the political continuation of Russia than the US civil war was for the US.
Newman is correct on this. The US Civil War was far more massive and damaging, than the Russian Civil War. Further, the Russian Civil War never had unified borders and nations – it was mostly a series of skirmishes scattered across the nation. It was the last gasp of private landowners.
The Great Patriotic War was not divisive to the Soviet Union – in fact, despite the great cost and casualties, you could make a case it emerged more unified and stronger. This is the difference between internal threats and external threats.
By the way, what percentage of Soviet Union territory was occupied by hostile forces in he Great Patriotic War? 15% maybe? I’d wager the British occupied more US territory during the War of 1812.
You can’t convince me that Russian economic turmoil was worse than the Great Depression. You seem to forget the homelessness and starvation that occurred in the US during that period.
One early advantage the Russian Federation had is citizens for the most part had homes and shelters (except for those displaced by regional wars.)
Lastly, it is a big steaming crock of shit to say that “Russia is far older than the US.”
The Russian Federation is a very young nation. The ethnic Russian people (and the many other ethnic people who populate the Russian Federation) may be ancient, but their country is not. There is a great difference and you are intelligent enough to know this is true.
Following your logic, the State of Israel is thousands of years old.
Governments and nations are separate entities from the people who inhabit their borders.
Khodorkovsky’s cellmate blames him in homosexual harrasment
There have been a lot of talks why a few years ago young prisoner hit his cellmate Khodorkovsky with a knife. “Free western democratic media” said it was a KGB-Putin plot to kill “a gret democrat Khodorkovsky”. The case is simple, prosaically.
http://www.rian.ru/society/20090114/159203868.html
The US Civil War was very bloody. The bloodies war thew wold have seen between the Napoleonic War and World War I. The Russian Civil War, however, was bloodier than the US Civil War. But that’s not the point. The point is that despite all those upheavals the US democratic constitutional system of government persisted. There is all this talk about the US being a young nation. Well, as a political entity the US is one of the oldest ones in the world. And it’s certainly the oldest among the powerful nations of the world. It has proven to have a remarkably resilient system of government. Will it stay like that forever? Of course not. Countries and empires come and go. That’s history.
From the years 1800 to 2000, what other important nations persisted through relatively few changes to its fundamental system of government? I guess we can include the UK. Besides the US and the UK, which other ones? It’s 4:48 am and I just got up and drawing a blank. That’s why I’m asking.
“From the years 1800 to 2000, what other important nations persisted through relatively few changes to its fundamental system of government?”
The US Civil War was largely about the fundamental system of government — whether power should be allocated in the states or the, ahem, federal center.
But anyway, this is actually part of my point. The US has not had any serious crises other than the Civil War. The qurstion is not how the US has endured crises it never had, but why it didn’t have them. (HINT: look at a map.)
Chris, I totally agree that the US was blessed by its geography. But then so has Argentina (among several other countries). Most of the upheavals and instability experienced by Argentina had to do with internal things.
It’s my understanding that Argentina (which a century ago was one of the world’s richest countries, no?) was crippled by its oligarchic social structure, which is probably an inheritance of the Spanish model of colonization. (?)
One big, obvious difference between the Northern and Southern American experiences is that the former developed a culturally relatively homogeneous society expanding into largely uninhabited (or violently rendered uninhabited) areas, whereas the latter didn’t. I know I’ve said this before, but IMO the relative stability of the United States (and Canada and Australia) to a very large extent rests upon this.
The US, Canada, and Australia have something else in common, that South America doesn’t have. They were all colonized by the British. How many countries that were colonized by the Spanish have worked out well versus countries colonized by the British. The underlying motivations b/w Spanish and British colonization were fundamentally different. The Spanish were in it for the resources, the British were in it for the resources too, but they assuaged their consciences by civilizing the inhabitants while getting them. British common law should get the credit for much of the success of the British colonies.
Speaking of the British, this story in a British tabloid cracked me up:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115882/From-Macho-Man-Renaissance-Man-Putin-breaks-judo-paint-charity.html
Here is a excerpt:
“But the Russian premier has taken time out from his latest battles over gas with Ukraine – causing a deep chill over much of Europe – to show that, like Churchill (and also Hitler), he has a softer, more artistic side.”
The picture of Putin is also pretty funny.
The US, Canada, and Australia have something else in common, that South America doesn’t have. They were all colonized by the British.
A more interesting connection between all of them is that they were settler colonial societies that all pretty much brutalized their indigenous populations. I would also include South Africa, French Algeria, and Israel in this.
Sean, the Spanish in Latin America were also rather brutal with the indigenous population. A difference, I guess, is that they were not as racist and most of the current population is a mixture of Native American, Spanish and African (the mix proportion depends on the location.)
I do think there was a different mind set between the British and Spanish colonists. As a Latin American scholar (whose name escapes me) wrote, it is the South East of the US that most closely resembled the mind-set of the Spanish colonists. And it is not a coincidence that the American South East for a long time lagged behind the rest of the US (actually, states of the Old South are still lagging.) What the South Easterners had in common with the Spanish colonists is that they primarily wanted to be “gentlemen”. The wanted to be plantation owners where someone else (the slave) does the hard physical work. They had a code of honor, liked to fight, and all that, but hard work was not really part of this code. Even if you were poor, your model was to be a master, the guy on horseback supervising the work. Very very few Spanish colonist had the mind set of the New England or Pennsylvania farmer. It was either strike it rich by finding gold, or getting a large piece of land and a few slaves to work it for you.
Incidentally, this is something that many Latin Americans recognize and lament.
In defence of the Spanish colonizers, they were heavily into civilizing the natives (all the way to ‘auto-da-fe’, if needs must). Actually, British ‘civilizing’ approach was much more hands-off.
Sean, fair enough. But how do you explain Hong Kong, Singapore, and India.
The US indigenous population wasn’t so much brutalised as wiped out, the vast majority unintentionally through disease.