The Rising Russian Right
By Sean at 8 February, 2009, 11:42 am
I’m normally not a big fan of the Guardian’s Luke Harding, but I think he deserves kudos for his latest article, “Putin’s Worst Nightmare.” Harding opens with the chilling and brutal murder of Karen Abramian, who was stabbed 56 times by two skinheads named Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, both 17, as he returned from visiting his parents.
Abramian’s murder was one in the string of 20 murders committed by the racist duo in a nine month period in 2006-2007. They also racked up about 16 attacks in their stabbing spree. Most importantly, as Harding stresses, the two youths “were proud” of their killings. After all, they are part of a “holy war” to rid Russia of racial others. “As they saw it,” Harding writes, “Abramian’s violent death was part of a national liberation movement – an ambitious, quasi-mystical struggle to get rid of Russia’s foreigners, in which they played the role of hero-warriors.” And if they mistook a few dark skinned Russians as gastarbeiters then so be it. This is what happened when the two fell upon S. Azimov in April 2007. Ryno and Skachevsky stabbed him 56 times, cutting off his ear as a race war relic. The race war, after all, is messy business.
To say that racism and ethnic violence is a growing problem in Russia is a no brainer. The statistics point to a steady rise in deaths at the hands of neo-Nazis and Russian nationalists. According to SOVA, there were 50 in 2004, 47 in 2005, 64 in 2006, 86 in 2007, and 96 in 2008. There were 12 murders in January 2009 alone. The fascists are already above their past average. And as Harding narrates there are no shortage of gruesome stories.
True most Russians condemn the use of violence against their racial others. But is also true that racist and anti-immigrant sentiment is mainstream. “More than 50% support the idea that ethnic Russians should have privileges over other ethnic groups,” Alexander Verkhovsky of the SOVA Center tells Harding. “More than 50% believe that ethnic minorities should be limited or even expelled from their region.” Skinhead violence therefore is merely the praxis of these views. For a frequent update on these acts, see Moscow Through Brown Eyes.
Experts estimate that there are approximately 50,000 skinheads in Russia. According to a recent MVD report there are about 302 informal youth groups, of the Left and the Right, “with signs of extremist views and beliefs.” These attract young people to participate in mass disorder, riots, and the murder of people of other faiths and nationalities for money, but frequently for uncertain purposes and slogans.”
One may hope that Medvedev’s recent comments at the Collegium of the Ministry of Internal Affairs will light a fire under Russian police organs in combating the Russian Right. After all, he put combating extremism at center stage. He said, “The specter of extremist threats are various, but they are of one essence: to destabilize the social and political situation in the country.” However, Medvedev’s comments were not simply in regard to the rise of racist attacks. The real context is the economic crisis. “In the atmosphere of the twofold drop in the labor market for foreign workers there is a possibility of not only the illegal use of workers’ power, but also the aggravation of the crime rate as a whole. I think that organs of the MVD need to take this issue under its direct control.” Medvedev’s suggestion? The creation of a special subdivision within the MVD to fight extremism. But the targets of this subdivision won’t be the Russian right as a whole (though I sure some of them will). According to documents obtained by Gazeta.ru, the MVD will mainly focus on the “participants of various protests,” “the social activists of oppositionists,” “the participants in anti-government actions,” and other disturbances connected to the global financial crisis.
Given recent events–the request that universities expel students who participate in unsanctioned protests, authorities putting pressure on the parents of National Bolshevik members, and now Nashi’s infiltration of opposition youth groups–there little surprise if police actions against Russian liberals and leftists heats up even more.
For the Russian right, however, while individual cases of violence are prosecuted and uncovered, there seems to be little systematic targeting of their activities by the authorities. Just the opposite it seems. So much so that Russian nationalists and fascists seem quite comfortable offering their services to the government. In Novgorod, activists of the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) have offered their services to the police by forming militias to secure public order. DPNI has also declared that it intends to arm its members with air guns to fight growing crime in connection with the economic crisis. Attacks against immigrants are often punished lightly, if at all, rarely getting stiff penalties associated with extremist acts. Instead, their violence is often labeled mere “hooliganism.”
While authorities have met DPNI’s offers with skepticism, if not bewilderment, the real test will be if they sanction the “Russian March” planned for 1 March. DPNI and the Slavic Union plan to commemorate the fallen soldiers of 6th Company, 104th Regiment of the Pskov Airborne Division. On 1 March 2000, 84 of that Regiment’s 90 soldiers were killed in Argunskii Revine in Chechnya. Both organizations say that they will refrain from displaying nationalist slogans. They are hardly needed since the nationalist undercurrent of the march is clear. Dark-skinned enemies without and by extension within killed Russians. Moscow’s mayor’s office will give its yea or nay to the demonstration sometime this week.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Isn’t there a contradiction between these two statements?:
“authorities putting pressure on the parents of National Bolshevik members”
“For the Russian right…there seems to be little systematic targeting of their activities by the authorities.”
I actually tend to consider NBP on the left. Maybe I’m mistaken or dreaming . . .
The NBP flag mimics the Nazi one for a reason.
The NBP are certainly leftists economically. I think the appropriate comparison would be to Gregor Strasser’s Nazism – socialist political/racial extremism. In fact IIRC he’s Limonov’s role model.
How can this be? Doesn’t Kasparov know?!?!?
What I find especially worrying about ethnic Russians’ attitudes towards ethnic minorities is that they don’t discriminate very much between immigrants and indigenous peoples. I hear just as many complaints about local Sakhalin Koreans (now into their fourth generation) as I do about Azeris. It’s one thing to demand that immigrants go home, quite another to think that those who have lived in Russia for generations should not really be there.
I used “indigenous” in the above post poorly, but you get my point.
Sean. What’s wrong with Yea sanction to Russian March? If the organizing parties are legal and purposes of the march are legal – there are no legal obstacles for Yea. Unless DPNI wanted to march on Tverskaya – in such a case they will get nay – they’ll get permission.
You see, they are not that stupid as Drugaya Rossia/kasparov etc. They get permission, get THOUSANDS of people and march in front of cameras. Who cares – outside Moscow – whether it was Tverskaya or some street in Kunzevo – it looks same on TV. And in newspaper it sounds like “Thousands march in Moscow”….Right?
Same here. I have no problem if protesters are jumping all night in front of Parlament. But if they decided to march on my street – I’ll be the first to use cold water over them
Same with Tverskaya – the street belongs to ALL people of Moscow, not the sect of kasparov and limonov.
So if someone wants to express his opinion – this is fine. As long as it doesn’t distract my eyes and ears. Remember, I can always turn my TV off or stop reading some blogs while it’s hard to do same with live marches under my balcony. But I have the rights too. And how can I express my opinion “F… yourself, Garri!”? Very simple – I support authorities that say nay to him
Tim. I’ve never heard about such problem in RFE. Koreans were always part of daily life. there were some tentions with local native tribes – udege, novkhi – cause they were living in different age. And now there are problems with Chinese, “azeri”. But Koreans?
But Koreans?
Yes, Koreans. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk has 30,000 of them, completely different from the Koreans found elsewhere in the USSR. These lot were brought here by the Japanese in WWII and have remained since. The Russians are insistent that they are not proper Russians, and are always complaining that they dominate all the businesses and jobs here.
I know the story why Koreans are there as well as in Kazakhstan
As to Russians – you meet wrong Russians I guess
There is a type of people – everywehere in the world – who are good in one thing only – complaining. Because just in next region to Sakhalin there are people complaining that all good jobs are occupied by the Jews…
“More than 50% support the idea that ethnic Russians should have privileges over other ethnic groups,”
I don’t know how the question was phrased to come with the above figure. If that’s a pretty much accurate assessment, though, it shows Russian public opinion as backward and racist. After all, we are not talking about a few cranks, but about the majority of the population.
It’s ridiculous that so much ink and effort is wasted to ridicule and thwart a harmless irrelevance like Kasparov and yet do so little to go after nationalist hate groups.
Because just in next region to Sakhalin there are people complaining that all good jobs are occupied by the Jews…
Exactly my point. It is one thing to object to the presence of foreigners, quite another to object to the presence of people who belong to Russia just as much as ethnic Russians and who have nowhere else to go, and to emphasise at every opportunity that they are not really Russian.
As to Russians – you meet wrong Russians I guess
There seem to be an awful lot of these wrong Russians.
I have a Korean friend in Khabarovsk and been to Yuzhny many times. My neighbor is married to Korean woman. They have a daughter. Complaints over Korean domination are exaggerated by sensitive and reclusive foreigners.
“I don’t know how the question was phrased to come with the above figure.”
I betcha the question and responses did not concern Russians vs. non-Russians, but rossiyane vs. immigrants. It was not about ethnic groups, but citizens vs. noncitizens.
20+% of people who live in Russian are not Russians, and more than that are of mixed ancestry, so it seems me this is almost certain to be the case. Otherwise it would be hard to get a 50%+ figure.
“What I find especially worrying about ethnic Russians’ attitudes towards ethnic minorities is that they don’t discriminate very much between immigrants and indigenous peoples.”
I think that varies hugely depending on the region and ethnic group you are talking about.
“Complaints over Korean domination are exaggerated by sensitive and reclusive foreigners.”
Who are driven into madness by periods of forced isolation on offshore oil rigs!
“It’s ridiculous that so much ink and effort is wasted to ridicule and thwart a harmless irrelevance like Kasparov and yet do so little to go after nationalist hate groups.”
Kolya, Kasparov is closely associated with the NBP, which is a nationalist hate group!!!! Albeit a particularly artsy one whose violence is limited to the odd bomb threat.
“I’m normally not a big fan of the Guardian’s Luke Harding, but I think he deserves kudos for his latest article, “Putin’s Worst Nightmare.””
Putin’s Worst Nightmare ? I wonder if Dubya lost any sleep over thousands of children who were murdered under his orders ?
Kolya.
Ask US citizens what group should have privileges – ethnic Americans or ethnic Mexicans ! And then we’ll talk
“Ask US citizens what group should have privileges – ethnic Americans or ethnic Mexicans ! And then we’ll talk”
The Americans have volunteers patrolling the border!
I’m really sorry for you, Tim. Looks like you deal with losers most of the time. Cause only losers are complaining that someone got their job, girl, car etc.
I’ve never met such a person in Khabarovsk (and as I said I was in Yuznhiy back in 1975 – so don’t know latest trends over there).
Well, I have to admit – there are more losers on the streets now. In old Soviet days the state took care of them. Now nobody cares
Are they really ethnic Americans or just lucky Mexicans with US passports? : )))
Just a joke.
I’m really surprised how Kolya – with his scientific background – is making judgment over big matter on few phrases from some “report”…
Ivanov, did you read my comment? You better reread it, especially that crucial first sentence.
“Ask US citizens what group should have privileges – ethnic Americans or ethnic Mexicans ! And then we’ll talk”
What’s an ethnic American? American citizens have equal rights and I’m sure that the vast majority of Americans believe that all US citizens should have equal privileges, whether they are ethnic Russians, Mexicans, Irish, Nigerian or a mix (which is the case with most Americans.)
Chris perhaps you are correct in your guess that the question was phrased in terms of Russian citizens vs. immigrants. As I made it perfectly clear, I don’t know. But if the question was phrased the way the article implied, then that’s obviously fucked up. Once again, here is the quote:
“More than 50% support the idea that ethnic Russians should have privileges over other ethnic groups,” Alexander Verkhovsky of the SOVA Center tells Harding.
“Kolya, Kasparov is closely associated with the NBP, which is a nationalist hate group!!!!”
Come on, Chris! Kasparov may be an irrelevance that people enjoy making fun of, but he will not knowingly form an alliance with a hate group. I think it was a mistake for Kasparov to form a alliance with the NBP, but it is clear that the NBP underwent changes and splits.
This is what Wikipedia says about today’s NBP:
“Statements have been issued opposing antisemitism, xenophobia, and racism as being contradictory to national bolshevik views. The NBP aggressively denounces Russian National Unity, racist Skinheads, and other Nazi and Fascist organizations in Russia… In recent Q and A on the internet on the website nazbol.ru the NBP has made sincere attempts to sever any ties with fascism, nazism, and racism.”
“This is what Wikipedia says about today’s NBP:”
Wikipedia?
You’ve never read anything Limonov’s written, have you?
Speaking of liking Stalin, you know that Limonov is a big big big Stalin fan, right, and that the NBP’s motto is “Stalin Beria GULAG,” right?
“Once again, here is the quote:”
And I explained why that statement is highly unlikely, almost impossible, to be true.
Kolya, maybe you should read the NBP manifesto rather than relying on Wiki:
http://nazbol.cc/2003/04/the-nbp-will/
This one’s good too: http://nazbol.cc/2004/03/hitler-and-chechnya/
Almost all of Limonov’s books area available for download on the NPB website. A few are even translated into English.
While I consider the NPB more left than right (as we know there is a history of left-wing nationalism), perhaps Limonov’s army defies left-right categorization. Perhaps they lie where left and right meet. How else can one explain the fact that the Natsbol library contains works by Che, Lenin, Guy Debord, Ernst Junger, Carlos Marighella, and others along with Limonov’s texts and others on National Socialism. I’m surprised that George Sorel isn’t on their list.
A few select manifesto quotes:
The Manifesto “the NBP Will” is based on the ideas of the Leader expounded in the book “Another Russia”. The Manifesto reasonably combines these oracular ideas with the real experience of fighting saved up by the Party.
…
The National-bolshevik wants to become the Creator of the New World. That’s in principle. Not to restore any boring historical justices, not to give people back something stolen but to create a new world and to put his great party – the NBP – in the center of this new world.
…
The NBP is the center of the world.
…
Not schizophrenics, not moaning intelligentsia, not officials from the Ministry of Justice will decide who is Russian and who is not. The Party will decide that. Based on the principles pointed out by the Leader.
…
The numerous children of the new nation who inherit talent and fighting spirit from their parents plus good-brought up will win back the best pieces of life-area from foreigners and the decrepit Russian-soviet nation in two ticks.
….
The NBP will create a life that suits our tastes, our ideas about Beauty, Freedom, Equity etc. in reconquered territories.
…
The Party greeting “Yes, Death!” is a cheerful expression of love to Life.
THEY’RE FASCISTS, KOLYA.
“Perhaps they lie where left and right meet.”
That’s why they’re called NATIONAL BOLSHEVIKS and their flag is a combination of a hammer-and-sickle and a swastika.
“back the best pieces of life-area”
PS “life-area” is “Lebensraum.”
THEY’RE FASCISTS, KOLYA.
In the Mussolini or Iron Guard sense. Not Nazis. I would even go so far as to say they are futurists of the Marinetti type. I find them quite fascinating because of this left-right mixture.
I agree Sean. (I actually try to avoid refering to the Nazis as fascists at all — racialism of the Nazi sort was alien to classical fascism.)
For the left-right linkage I think Dugin is more interesting than Limonov, since he’s, well, much smarter.
PS ever looked at the Israeli NBP? That stuff is vertiginous. “We demand a Red Zionist Empire across the Middle East!”
PS ever looked at the Israeli NBP?
I didn’t even know there was one. I do now. I’ll have to show my wife.
Limonov is such a ringmaster!
Complaints over Korean domination are exaggerated by sensitive and reclusive foreigners.
Erm, it is not the foreigners, sensitive or otherwise, who are complaining. It is the ethnic Russians. And if you think foreigners are reclusive in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, I am seriously doubting whether you’ve actually been here.
I think that varies hugely depending on the region and ethnic group you are talking about.
Perhaps, but it is a common trait amongst ethnic Russians wherever they are from that they emphasise the non-Russian-ness of ethnic minorities in Russia. Every place I’ve been to in Russia, I’ve heard the “But they’re not Russian!” line used when talking about any ethnic minority.
“Every place I’ve been to in Russia, I’ve heard the “But they’re not Russian!” line used when talking about any ethnic minority.”
If a foreigner were to go to Britain and start claiming that Pakistanis and Black people were White, don’t you think that would be considered odd and locals would point out that they weren’t?
“it is not the foreigners, sensitive or otherwise, who are complaining.”
He said the furners were exaggerating, not complaining.
>>>And if you think foreigners are reclusive in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, I am seriously doubting whether you’ve actually been here.
Oh, come on. You guys live in kinda ghettos, in your small communities like exotic animals in a zoo. All I have seen of you during my several visits during last 3 years is some walks over Kommunistichesky Prospekt in the vicinities of Sakhalin Energy building. Rumors say there is an old guy who is going in paragliding but that’s all I know. There are also rumors you guys dominate oil-business jobs, is it true?
“You’ve never read anything Limonov’s written, have you?”
No. Besides short quotes here and there, no. I don’t think I ever read a single one of his essays or books. Why? Because he does not interest me. From the stuff I read about Limonov throughout the years I concluded he’s not a person I care about. Actually, my impression is that there’s a higher likelihood than you would be more interested in such personas–whether from the left or the right. People such as Dugin, Zizek, Limonov. I’m not into such kind of performance artists. I find them irresponsible.
Having said that, a while ago I did see (or read about–forgot which one) Limonov saying something against racism or antisemitism. Didn’t really pay attention to it because, as I wrote, Limonov does not interest me.
I’m all for investigating any groups responsible for the beatings and killings of anyone they deem not acceptable–regardless of party. It’s rather strange that people get more worked up about Kasparov than about those who are indeed responsible for hate crimes.
To make it perfectly clear, though: neither Limonov nor Kasparov interest me.
“And I explained why that statement is highly unlikely, almost impossible, to be true.”
And, Chis, I wrote that you may be correct. I simply don’t know because I have not read the phrasing of the poll question. Absolutely nothing unreasonable in what I have written.
“If a foreigner were to go to Britain and start claiming that Pakistanis and Black people were White, don’t you think that would be considered odd and locals would point out that they weren’t?”
Yes, that would be odd and obviously stupid. But how about if they start claiming that people of Pakistani and African descent born in Britain are British? That’s the proper comparison.
In the Mussolini or Iron Guard sense. Not Nazis. I would even go so far as to say they are futurists of the Marinetti type. I find them quite fascinating because of this left-right mixture.
Very much so. What I find sad is that there appears to be a need for this type in Russia, it being a century behind Marinetti.
I am not sure I will ever be able to take Nutsballs seriously since the culture of Митьки was so much a foundation of it: Курехин, Летов… . Amazing that something what my gut tells me was a comedy stunt at inception can grow into something people take seriously.
Limonov… hmm, I wonder if he remembers being thrown out of the patio into the rolling hill shrubbery in Monterey some time ago? Can anybody ask?
I am seriously curious why “people of the liberal opposition” are so crazy about hate crimes rate in Russia.
It is obvious that ethic criminal bands are flooding Russia as well. I mean some Chechen band will most of times attack Russian citizens, if the Chechens live outside of Chechnya. I guess it is the case as well in the West. Though, politically corrected Europeans and Americans pay attention to nazi pocket parties rather than ethic minorities crime rate.
Wikipedia is a great resource. It should not be used as the last word, but despite the occasional inaccuracy it’s a useful place for quick info.
In any event, Chris, the Wikipedia statement about the NBP I quoted before was not the fantasy of an anonymous wiki contributor. It was picked up from the NatsBol FAQ itself. And that probably explains why many hard-core skinheads left the NBP in disgust. (And once again, I think it was a mistake for Kasparov to form an alliance with the NBP.)
2. В НАЗВАНИИ НБП ЕСТЬ СЛОВО “НАЦИОНАЛ”. ВЫ – ФАШИСТЫ?
Национал-большевикам чужда любая форма ксенофобии, антисемитизма, расовой нетерпимости. В НБП состоят люди разных национальностей.
Обвинение в фашизме – это один из основных пропагандистских ходов, которые использует власть в борьбе с нацболами, умышленно приравнивая НБП к скинхедам, несуществующей много лет РНЕ и ей подобным организациям. В реальности НБП не имеет ничего общего с неонацистами и всевозможными узколобыми гитлеристами.
Национал-большевики являются националистами почвы, а не националистами крови. Это значит, что для нас не имеет значение этническое происхождение человека, и мы не делим людей на “низших” и “высших”, исходя из их родословной. Русский человек для нас – это тот, кто сам считает себя русским, кто говорит на русском языке и признает русскую культуру и историю, кто готов бороться на благо России и никакой другой Родины не мыслит. Национализм почвы, имперский национализм – это есть истинное проявление русской идеи, в отличие от модных в определенных кругах расистских идей, заимствованных с Запада и чуждых нашему национальному менталитету.
http://nazbol.ru/rubr28/index0/253.html
Khabar:
“I am seriously curious why “people of the liberal opposition” are so crazy about hate crimes rate in Russia.”
For what is worth, they also go crazy when hate crimes occur in the US. When the hate crime is committed by someone who belongs to the majority group (say, whites in the US) citizens are especially horrified precisely because they come from the majority–the group that already has the most advantage and power. In addition, for a society it’s easier to deal with a troublesome minority than with a troublesome majority.
If a foreigner were to go to Britain and start claiming that Pakistanis and Black people were White, don’t you think that would be considered odd and locals would point out that they weren’t?
Yes, it would. But that is not the same thing. It would be perfectly acceptable for a foreigner to go to Britain and claim that the Pakistanis and black people were British.
He said the furners were exaggerating, not complaining.
Yes, foreigners so reclusive that they exaggerate the complaints the ethnic Russians make against the Koreans. Yeah, I’m convinced.
You guys live in kinda ghettos, in your small communities like exotic animals in a zoo.
We do? News to me, fella. I’ve been living in the same tumbledown apartment blocks as everyone else.
All I have seen of you during my several visits during last 3 years is some walks over Kommunistichesky Prospekt in the vicinities of Sakhalin Energy building. Rumors say there is an old guy who is going in paragliding but that’s all I know.
I can see what you’ve done here. You’ve adopted a a set of lazy stereotypes about expats in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, which would be instantly dismissed any Russian who actually lived here.
There are also rumors you guys dominate oil-business jobs, is it true?
Russian content on the projects is over 65% as per the terms of the PSA.
>>>Russian content on the projects is over 65% as per the terms of the PSA.
I adopt rumors about you guys as you personally do about Russians&Koreans.
I have a right for exaggeration as anyone else. Sorry, but I am afraid you cannot give us any example of racism on this particular Korean matter except blabbering of your lazy co-workers.
BTW, I am not sure you hire local personnel in big numbers, majority of Russians are Muscovites.
>>>For what is worth, they also go crazy when hate crimes occur in the US.
When you say “they” as in Russian libearals whom do you mean? Any example of critical attitude towards “Amierika” from Russian libs?
Khabar, I meant their American counterparts, the liberals/progressives in the US. In any event, shouldn’t people, regardless of ideology, be strongly against hate crimes?
To Kolya:
Surely, they have to be. But I am a fan of “systematic approach” in which moral principles may sometimes look warped for the alone observer because he/she inevitably belongs to one or another of the observation parties.
Sorry, but I am afraid you cannot give us any example of racism on this particular Korean matter except blabbering of your lazy co-workers.
I can give you lots of examples, but no doubt they will be dismissed as being mere personal accounts which cannot be backed up. For instance, one Russian co-worker here complained when a Korean started work in our department that “soon she will have half her relatives in here and the whole place will be Korean”.
But I know a few readers on here are friends with me on Facebook, and if they scroll through my list of friends they will see there are two Korean Russians on there: Natalie Yang and Rimma Tsoy, both of whom speak to me about the difficulties they have being seen as outsiders by both Russians and South Koreans. There is also Irina Kim, but I don’t discuss such matters with her: she’s only on there because she is outrageously good looking.
BTW, I am not sure you hire local personnel in big numbers, majority of Russians are Muscovites.
Heh! I’ll let that be your little secret. Perhaps you can nip across the Straits and write an article on how the impoverished Sakhaliners beg at the side of the unpaved roads as the Muscovites are whisked to work in their Hummers?
That’s right, exactly what I told you, people.
No evidence. No case.
I don’t like Muscovites too. Now you can write the story yourself and ask your N. Korean friends, which are not welcomed by both Russia or S. Korea to translate it into Russian at BBC.
Any example of critical attitude towards “Amierika” from Russian libs?
My experience over the last 5 years (over 6 months total) keeping my ailing mother company while listening to Эхо МОсквы was that it was most of the times very critical of the US.
Now that I think of it, I have not spoken to anyone in Russia that had not expressed at least some criticism of the US – ranging from “Bush дурак” to well thought through policy opinions.
Your question leads me to believe you did not think it over. There are a lot of people in the US that criticize the US. I would say that amounts to close to 100%. Some criticize too much welfare, some decry not enough.
Keeping that in mind, why would Russians be any different in their attitudes to US or Russia for that matter? A country is a complex beast and there is always something for someone to criticize.
Cyrill, I agree with you about criticizing of authorities. But Russia is not the US and I am not going to criticize them if I find critics counter-productive. This is my subjective opinion.
You see I live on the Chinese border. China becomes more powerful and strong fatted on American investment. They don’t have such level of critics as the US. Why?
That’s right, exactly what I told you, people.
No evidence. No case.
Of course, personal testimony does not constitute evidence in Russia.
Now you can write the story yourself and ask your N. Korean friends
Incidentally, my friends are not North Korean, they are Russian Koreans. This type of snide smearing against the Sakhalin Koreans is exactly what I am talking about. A comment here, a remark there, but always, always, let everyone know that they really should not be here.
>>>Of course, personal testimony does not constitute evidence in Russia.
Of course it doesn’t, because the evidence cannot be proved unbiased and reliable if it is not supported in court by someone else, preferrably by the victim herself. Otherwise the source of the evidence is a mere douchebag.
)
Of course it doesn’t, because the evidence cannot be proved unbiased and reliable if it is not supported in court by someone else, preferrably by the victim herself.
Yes, but we’re not in a court of law. We are in the comments section of a blog. You’ve been caught out making ill-informed comments about Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk and its expat population, and are now resorting to stupidity in order to contest my point that ethnic Russians in Sakhalin do not look upon Sakhalin Koreans favourably.
I have presented a general picture supported by an actual statement from a Russian colleague and the identities of two Sakhalin Koreans who I have shown I know personally. In response, you’ve denied it, smeared my two friends as being unwelcome North Koreans, and said my case would not hold up in a law court.
As I said, we’re on a blog here: I leave it to others to decide for themselves whether my argument is worth listening to.
>>>Incidentally, my friends are not North Korean, they are Russian Koreans. This type of snide smearing against the Sakhalin Koreans is exactly what I am talking about. A comment here, a remark there, but always, always, let everyone know that they really should not be here.
Snides and fun-poking is not a crime, not in politcorrectless Russia. My colleague from the Sakhalin branch is happy with her job and her son studies as close as St. Petersburg university. I can give you her e-mail, she will answer all your questions.
All you can say is not your own first-hand experience but several girls’ unpublished revelations. Huh, man, I wonder what your wife thinks of all of this?
Snides and fun-poking is not a crime, not in politcorrectless Russia.
No, it’s not. But snide comments defended later as “fun” have a nasty habit of cropping up on this blog (and others) from time to time. You’re not the first, and your style is becoming somewhat familiar.
I can give you her e-mail, she will answer all your questions.
Erm, what questions?
All you can say is not your own first-hand experience
No, I gave you an example of a Russian’s attitude to a Sakhalin Korean which I witnessed first hand, remember? Maybe you forgot it?
Huh, man, I wonder what your wife thinks of all of this?
Quite a lot actually, considering she knows all three of them and speaks Korean with one of them whenever they meet.
>>>Incidentally, my friends are not North Korean, they are Russian Koreans. This type of snide
Do you have it in for North Koreans, are they non-humans in your eye?
>>>Erm, what questions?
For example, how does she feel in Russia compared to say, Uzbekistan or Kim Chen Ir’s domain.
For example, how does she feel in Russia compared to say, Uzbekistan or Kim Chen Ir’s domain.
Erm, no. These are your questions.
>>No, I gave you an example of a Russian’s attitude to a Sakhalin Korean which I witnessed first hand, remember?
You haven’t witnessed the misdeed, someone’s opinion was shared with you.
That’s why your gang lost all projects to Putin’s lawers. Ahahahahaha.
“Yes, it would. But that is not the same thing. It would be perfectly acceptable for a foreigner to go to Britain and claim that the Pakistanis and black people were British.”
Russian = White, not British.
Russian = White, not British.
So me saying a Buryat is Russian is the same as me saying a black man is white?
WTF?
“Having said that, a while ago I did see (or read about–forgot which one) Limonov saying something against racism or antisemitism.”
So has Dugin. Doesn’t prevent people from calling him a neo-Nazi.
Limonov is a fascoid of the Mussolini type, not the racist Nazi type.
I am glad we have established that Kasparov’s main muscle are indeed fascoids.
To ascertain the truth of the idea that more attention is being spent on Other Russia and so forth than on ethnic-hate groups we would need to have figures on resource allocation and so forth within the FSB and police, prosecution figures and so forth, which we don’t have. Without them the assertion is worthless.
“It’s rather strange that people get more worked up about Kasparov”
One other thing. Kasparov is nothing. The bulk of Other Russia types are the NBP (and Anpilovites and other sundries). Other Russia is named after the Great Prophetic Work by the Leader. Kasparov is only there because he has international stature and is thus good for PR abroad.
If it weren’t for the NBP, nobody would go to those Dissenters’ Marches. What do you call a march composed of mostly fascists? You call it a … Fascist March.
Chris, I’m not interested in Kasparov, Limonov or the NBP. I think too much time is spent on either singing Kasparov’s praises (as Robert Amsterdam does) or being pissed off at him and loudly claim that he’s a nothing. In this thread, this whole discussion about Limonov and the NBP started when I wrote:
“It’s ridiculous that so much ink and effort is wasted to ridicule and thwart a harmless irrelevance like Kasparov and yet do so little to go after nationalist hate groups.”
And you replied:
“Kolya, Kasparov is closely associated with the NBP, which is a nationalist hate group!!!!”
Well, from the context of my words it was clear that I meant hate groups that actually do go out and beat up or even kill those who they deem unacceptable. Such groups are not shy about what they do. They brag about it. The NBP (being Limonov’s creation) are into PR stunts, but they condemn racist hate crimes of the type I’ve described. I find it pathetic that Limonov has a following, but so be it. (I also find it pathetic that Dugin has a following.) In any event, the NBP went through several changes. Nothing strange in that considering that Limonov is a flaky individual. For me whether or not he and his NBP are fascists a la earlier Mussolini is neither here nor there.
What is important, however, is to deal with groups and individuals who are actually beating and even killing people because of their ethnicity.
But Russia is not the US and I am not going to criticize them if I find critics counter-productive.
If you find those that criticize authorities (critics) as counter-productive, then you yourself would not criticize these said authorities even if you have some criticism to express?
Thank you. I will definitely use this as an example when asked why people in Russia do not criticize authorities as much. The most interesting is that it is voluntary. Just another facet to “Народ безмолвствует”
But snide comments defended later as “fun” have a nasty habit of cropping up on this blog (and others) from time to time.
I wonder if patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel, freedom of expression and to say fun things must be the last resort of a chauvinist.
Excessive political correctness in the West somehow gave Russians excuse to continue being chauvinists.
“Excessive political correctness in the West somehow gave Russians excuse to continue being chauvinists.”
Such is the well-known ‘Russian paradox’. Russians try to improve by copying the latest progressive trends from the West only to reinforce the archaic Russian problems, again and again.
Candide, Russia never copies anything. It always looks for its own way. Most of the time in the dark. Hence so many bruises.
Ouch!
Russians try to improve by copying the latest progressive trends from the West only to reinforce the archaic Russian problems, again and again.
I guess this is what I was referring to earlier. I have noticed a trend, which is by no means universal, whereby Russian men who are clearly intelligent and write impeccable English resort to boorish, semi-childish, wannabe-macho behaviour online. I guess a lot of these guys see Putin as a smart, educated individual who resorts to boorish comments on the international stage and reaps the applause of the audience back home, and think that this is sophistication.
What they are missing is that although this might go down well amongst young Russian men, most people see it as being hopelessly behind the times and the mark of ignorant, peasant-like behaviour. The sooner they grow out of this, the better IMO.
(Incidentally, I’m not saying that all or even most Russians behave like this. Nor am I saying that other nationalities, not least Brits, can be utter tw*ts online.)
>>>If you find those that criticize authorities (critics) as counter-productive, then you yourself would not criticize these said authorities even if you have some criticism to express?
Yes. Do you always criticize the people your life and income belong to like your parents or your boss? I don’t think so. With an excessive critical attitude one will never marry and never have kids, you know.
>>>Thank you. I will definitely use this as an example when asked why people in Russia do not criticize authorities as much. The most interesting is that it is voluntary. Just another facet to “Народ НЕ безмолвствует”
Actually,“Народ НЕ безмолвствует” as you noticed the news in January. One of the people’s vital interest was touched and the people responded with a wave of protests.
Why should I explain such simple things?
>>>What they are missing is that although this might go down well amongst young Russian men, most people see it as being hopelessly behind the times and the mark of ignorant, peasant-like behaviour. The sooner they grow out of this, the better IMO.
Indeed, gay pride parades in London are more, more progressive.
*pukes*
Seriously, gents, haven’t you ever visit political forums and discussed issues with American intellectual rednecks or actual militaries? That would sober up your office minds in a whiff.
Do you always criticize the people your life and income belong to like your parents or your boss?
Well, now, this is a different tune. Why didn’t you say that you were afraid to criticize in the first place, before bringing up counter-productive critics.
With an excessive critical attitude one will never marry and never have kids, you know.
No, I don’t know that and neither do you. But it is interesting how you suddenly change from simple criticism to excessive one.
Indeed, gay pride parades in London are more, more progressive.
Yes they are. They are more progressive then your neanderthal intolerance. What difference does it make to you what others prefer same sex? And why being proud of that is any different from being proud of being a Russian? Or proud of your football team?
haven’t you ever visit political forums and discussed issues with
Many times on many forums with Marxists or John Birch society members, with the new age hippies or big oil execs. From military to peace protesters. What’s your point?
>>>Well, now, this is a different tune. Why didn’t you say that you were afraid to criticize in the first place, before bringing up counter-productive critics.
So you see only one of possible motivations behind my actions – fear? How about esteem? You see I am a small person in a small town, I never been abroad, my English copied from text- and audiobooks, so I have obvious limits in experience and knowledge. Thus I delegate my life to the people I feel esteem.
>>>No, I don’t know that and neither do you. But it is interesting how you suddenly change from simple criticism to excessive one.
Isn’t it the Western phylosophy – rabid consumerism? Wives, husbands, kids are all a source of eternal CHOICE like goods in supermarket.
>>>They are more progressive then your neanderthal intolerance.
My neanderthal intolerance to gays is based on my neanderthal intolerance to low birthrates and turning of post-industrial nations (including Russia) into Khalifates or Chinese provinces. And the reason to that are libs.
My neanderthal intolerance to gays is based on my neanderthal intolerance to low birthrates and turning of post-industrial nations (including Russia) into Khalifates or Chinese provinces.
It’s an interesting topic, gays in Russia. One of my wife’s friends from Sakhalin is gay, and he has to keep it pretty quiet to avoid being abused both physically and verbally by those around him. The one thing he finds most intolerable is that beneath the macho image and homophobic behaviour of Russian men the place is rife with homosexuals, same as everywhere else. He can walk into the top club in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk and find a whole heap of Russian men slipping him phone numbers, sometimes the same men who are prone to a spot of gay bashing during the day. One day Russians are going to have to accept the fact that most of us in the west did a few decades ago: that an awful lot of its population is gay, and the “man’s man” image is normally hiding something.
“Isn’t it the Western phylosophy – rabid consumerism? ”
No.
“My neanderthal intolerance to gays is based on my neanderthal intolerance to low birthrates and turning of post-industrial nations (including Russia) into Khalifates or Chinese provinces. And the reason to that are libs.”
So it’s the fault of homosexuals that post-industrial nations have low birth rates? Is homosexuality contagious?
I assume you know that whether culturally acceptable or not the proportion of homosexuals does not change much.
(Guys, I know it was silly to respond…)
LOL.
Tim, research pretty much confirms much of what you said: homophobic men are often sexually attracted to other men.
“heterosexual men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.”
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Homophobia_Associated_With_Homosexual_Arousal_study
>>>So it’s the fault of homosexuals that post-industrial nations have low birth rates? Is homosexuality contagious?
Every research may be well-funded with the needed bias as well as weel-thought may be revelations and rumors. I don’t buy it.
Let’s face the reality. Liberalism opens vent to more human instincts being legally adopted in society. Same-sex marriage, public sex – these things are banned in traditional societies. In terms of family values you guys lose it to traditionalists.
Same-sex marriage, public sex – these things are banned in traditional societies. In terms of family values you guys lose it to traditionalists.
Yeah, Russia’s traditionalism has worked wonders for family values. That must be why divorces and single mothers are such a rarety in Russia.
Which is a result of the West-inspired liberalism in the era of cheap oil.
So you see only one of possible motivations behind my actions -
I did not say anything about “the only one”. You need to stop reading what you think others say.
Thus I delegate my life to the people I feel esteem.
With a side bonus of not being responsible for what the esteemed do on your behalf.
Let’s face the reality. Liberalism opens vent to more human instincts being legally adopted in society.
No, let’s face that liberalism aspires liberty, freedom. Freedom is a function of choice. Your traditional societies all have one fine tradition – they all limit freedom, they limit choice. Be it by coercion or dictate.
You can wish all day long for the traditional societies to come back, reestablish family values of subjugated women, traditional morals of intolerance but better wake up and smell the coffee – this old train ain’t coming to the station. The engine is rusted through like an old Lada.
Geesh, I can’t believe this conversation. Feels like I am back on the air talking to conservative rednecks. Nice company. And the funniest thing – the set of views and opinions transcends oceans in more way then one. Family values – good , Illegal Mexicans – bad, Gays – bad, Liberals – bad.
It’s very funny, but also sad, to think that Khabar is NOTa parody–that perhaps he truly believes in what he has written.
Actually I know a lot of young people who think dictatorship a-la Pinochet is the best choice for Russia. They are in minority, though.
Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were advised to adopt Pinochet models. By the Economist, no less.
“whether culturally acceptable or not the proportion of homosexuals does not change much.”
Not that this belongs in a Russia thread, but I think it would be very difficult to determine the truth or falsity of this statement. How would one go about determining how many homosexuals are in Saudi Arabia? Especially given that “homosexual” is a socially conditioned idea (that is only a bit over a hundred years old).
“Liberalism opens vent to more human instincts being legally adopted in society.”
“et’s face that liberalism aspires (to) liberty, freedom.”
I think this is a silly discussion, but there is no contradiction between these two statements.
How would one go about determining how many homosexuals are in Saudi Arabia?
By opening your eyes and listening to the testimony of the young Filipino and Indian bellhops in Middle Eastern hotels. The Islamic societies are awash with homosexuals, you can see it a mile off.
“By opening your eyes and listening to the testimony of the young Filipino and Indian bellhops in Middle Eastern hotels. The Islamic societies are awash with homosexuals, you can see it a mile off.”
That’s not going to give you a number, is it? For Kolya’s assertion to be verified, you would have to not only determine that the numbers of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia and Sweden were the same, you would have to determine that people in Saudi Arabia (for instance) engaging in homosexual activity were not doing it because they were homosexuals, but for some other reason, such as lack of access to women (cf. male behavior in prisons).
Really the whole thing is silly because nobody really knows what causes homosexuality, and it is likely a variety of factors.
Chris, for me a homosexual is a person who primarily feels sexual arousal by others of his own gender, even when people of the opposite sex are available. Like with many things in life there is a spectrum–heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. It seems that there is both a genetic as well as a developmental (before birth) component to homosexuality. From what I know, there is no consensus yet on which component (genetic or developmental) is the more important. The scientific consensus, though, is that a person’s sexual orientation is determined before the person’s birth. And, of course, homosexuality, as I have described it, is also found in other species. Feel free to dismiss what I wrote as hogwash. I’m not interested in digging out data to prove my point. It’s all out there.
There’s racism in Russia, and then there’s this survey of antisemitism in Europe. So much for Enlightenment.
Perhaps its from reading too much Foucault, but I’m very uncomfortable with the tendency to locate homosexuality in scientific discourse. If only we could return to the pre-19th century when there was homosexual sex but no homosexuals.
“Perhaps its from reading too much Foucault, but I’m very uncomfortable with the tendency to locate homosexuality in scientific discourse.”
Sean, I have never read Foucault, but I suspected you would uncomfortable with it. I don’t see anything wrong with it and there is no moral judgment in it at all. Many homosexuals totally accept this scientific approach. They feel a sort of vindication in it. Other homosexuals don’t. I guess a lot of it depends on how particular individuals view science itself.
I’ll bow out of this discussion now because I simply don’t know much about the schools of thought that view much of the world as social constructs. (This does not mean that I dispute the “existence” of constructs and convenient fictions.)
“There’s racism in Russia, and then there’s this survey of antisemitism in Europe.”
Nothing about Russia, sorry. A quick comment about Venezuela: now, thanks to Chavez and “chavismo” there is antisemitism in Venezuela. It’s rather striking because Venezuela never had many Jews and it never had a history of antisemitism (in contrast to Argentina, for example.)
“It seems that there is both a genetic as well as a developmental (before birth) component to homosexuality. From what I know, there is no consensus yet on which component (genetic or developmental) is the more important. The scientific consensus, though, is that a person’s sexual orientation is determined before the person’s birth”
I’m not exactly trained in these matters, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t true. How could one possibly know this?
The existence of homosexual behavior in other species is irrelevant.
“Many homosexuals totally accept this scientific approach.”
Ahem. Reductionist, pseudo-scientific approach.
“A quick comment about Venezuela: now, thanks to Chavez and “chavismo” there is antisemitism in Venezuela.”
Why do I find it hard to believe that Chavez created antisemitism in Venezuela. I’m calling bullshit on this one.
I think this is a silly discussion, but there is no contradiction between these two statements.
“Тоже мне, бином Ньютона.” Did anyone say anything about a contradiction?
Negation is generally implied by the word “no.”
Oh, well, Chris, you enjoy this game of being snarkily contrarian. I will quit commenting on the gay issue, but I do want to add that it’s ridiculous to state that the existence of homosexual behavior in other species is irrelevant. It’s like saying that in studying human violence the existence of violent behavior in other species is irrelevant. And the same goes for many other behaviors and biological functions.
As to Chavez, yes, I’m sure that Chavez did not CREATE antisemitism in Venezuela. I’m sure some Venezuelans were antisemites. But it was never a problem before. While I lived there I don’t remember a single Jew complaining about antisemitism in Venezuela. Actually, a Jewish family from Argentina that moved to Venezuela told me that it was a relief to them to live in a place where their Jewishness is never an issue. That’s not the case anymore, though. Why? Because of the rhetoric of Chavez and his chavistas. Chavez cooled down after a Caracas synagogue was robbed and vandalized (a week or two ago), but many Venezuelan Jews attest that now there is a hostility towards them that they had never experienced before.
Negation is generally implied by the word “no.”
Correct, бином Ньютона. And “no” can also refer to a suggestion of a different action to be performed on the same object: like looking at it from a different angle.
“One day Russians are going to have to accept the fact that most of us in the west did a few decades ago: that an awful lot of its population is gay, and the “man’s man” image is normally hiding something.”
This may be the case in girly Britain, peopled as it is by poofters
, it is not the case in the United States. (There is no unitary “West.”)
“I will quit commenting on the gay issue, but I do want to add that it’s ridiculous to state that the existence of homosexual behavior in other species is irrelevant.”
It is irrevelant to the question of whether or not homosexuality is exclusively determined pre-birth.
“Because of the rhetoric of Chavez and his chavistas.”
When has he/they used anti-Semitic rhetoric?
“Oh, well, Chris, you enjoy this game of being snarkily contrarian.”
Where would the Internet be without it?
“When has he/they used anti-Semitic rhetoric?”
Chris, use google and you’ll find plenty of stuff. For one, I never saw anti-Jewish graffiti in Venezuela. You can find it now in Caracas. Besides the synagogue being vandalized, a Jewish school was raided a couple of times supposedly to look for weapons (did they think that Jewish kids were being trained to overthrow him?). Another new thing: articles questioning the loyalty of Venezuelan Jews, etc. It’s a long list, actually. According to representatives of the Jewish community, over 25 percent of Venezuelan Jews left the country within the last eight years or so and the trend has been accelerating. For Venezuela this is unprecedented. The whole thing is plain weird because until very recently nobody associated Venezuela with such things.
““Oh, well, Chris, you enjoy this game of being snarkily contrarian.”
Where would the Internet be without it?”
In a better place, in my opinion.
“I will quit commenting on the gay issue, but I do want to add that it’s ridiculous to state that the existence of homosexual behavior in other species is irrelevant.”
”It is irrevelant to the question of whether or not homosexuality is exclusively determined pre-birth.”
Of course it is relevant, absolutely so. In fact most interpretation and understanding of inherent and acquired characteristics in the early days was gained from the study of plants and flies. Or maybe you think that Mendel and Morgan were bullshitters, and Lysenko was right?:-) That homosexuality occurs in animals I think does point to it being inherent. Animals tend not to be born into gay situations, and dont have any sort of ‘gay influence’ that gobshites out there might say ‘make people gay’. I would say its a gene that just hasnt been identified yet. All the gays I know were born into ‘normal’ families and I guess realised one day that they were gay. It must be determined pre-birth, or at least the urge to be with someone of the same sex. Affinities for shoes, handbags and Kylie Minogue are undoubtedly acquired, however.
One more on Chavez…
Not that it proves anything, but it is interesting to note that one of Chavez’s great intellectual influences was the Argentine Norberto Ceresole, who died in 2003. From what I have read about him, Ceresole’s ideas are a whole mish-mash. Some aspects are quite fascists; he wrote about the necessity of the caudillo (strong man); other parts are quite lefty. Besides considering the US as a great and evil enemy, Ceresole was also rabidly antisemitic as well as a Holocaust denier. Not surprisingly, he believed in all sorts of Jewish-American conspiracies. (I can give a link of his writings in Spanish–if anyone is interested.)
For a year or two in the 1970s he served as an advisor to Velasco, who at the time was Peru’s military dictator. He lived in Venezuela for a bit and when Chavez was pardoned for his 1992 coup attempt Ceresole became quite close to him. Ceresole was deported from Venezuela for so-called improper political activities with Chavez and others. When Chavez won the presidency in 1998 Ceresole returned to Venezuela and wrote a book praising Chavez as a caudillo. The book turned to be a political embarrassment to Chavez’s democratic credentials. Miquilena, Venezuela’s vicepresident at the time (an old Venezuelan lefty and former communist), pressured Ceresole to leave the country. Ceresole died a few years later. Miquilena himself broke politically with Chavez (he claims to be bothered by Chavez’s centralization of power.) In a speech a couple of years ago, Chavez heaped praised on the late Ceresole.
Some aspects are quite fascists; he wrote about the necessity of the caudillo (strong man); other parts are quite lefty.
Kolya. There would be no contradiction or perception of a mish-mash if you’d just accept a historical fact that most lefty regimes had caudillos. There is a glaring contradiction between words and deeds within leftism (almost as big as the traditional disconnect between слово и дело in Russian culture). It proclaims liberté, égalité, fraternité, but without developed capitalism, it brings exactly the opposite.
Economically and socially, most of the dictatorships of the XX century were quite similar. They might differ politically in slogans they deploy but deep inside they are quite the same.
Hi Cyrill. I see I wasn’t clear–my apologies. I didn’t mean to imply that Ceresole’s praise of caudillos are part of the fascist aspect of his ideas and the lefty aspect are something else. Ceresole’s thought is indeed a total mishmash: fascist ideas, Peronism, caudillismo, lefty ideas, antisemitism, admiration towards the Iranian Shiite regime, etc.
Kolya, until you get to the admiration for the Iranian Shiite regime, the list is very consistent. All the isms you mention seem to be quite close (not to suggest that anti-semitism only belongs to the left, but the list seems coherent. It all revolves around populism. Again, this is just based on isms not on actual views, since I never read the guy.
The admiration towards Iranian Shiite regime is a tough one, but a theocracy and a personality cult are quite close.
Cyrill, against my will you forced me to check a bit more on Norberto Ceresole. At the end, I think he can be described as some sort of fascist who had a strong-man fetish. He believed in the “holy” triad of caudillo, army & people. A common denominator for him was virulent anti-Americanism and antisemitism. He was very pro-Arab and then, after the Iranian revolution, he became pro-Iran and sang the praises of Shiite Islam.
It seems that when Chavez came to power many of his advisors realized that Ceresole is an embarrassment and they eventually whisked him away. Ironically, none of those former advisors are now with Chavez and, a couple of years ago, Chavez talked about his admiration for his deceased friend Ceserole. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that before Chavez Venezuela never had a Jewish problem, but now talk about Jews, the roles of Jews in the world, Zionism, and so on are part of Venezuela’s political vocabulary. It’s also interesting that during Chavez about a quarter to a third of Venezuelan Jews left the country–after generations of living there. There were never many Jews in Venezuela, but many of them have been there since the 19th century.
It’s pretty well proven that homosexual behavior in the human species has a biological component. They have connected this through studies, not only of other animals, but through DNA studies of homosexuals and their families. Among the scientific community the debate is not IF, but to what extent and what combinations of genetic markers affect that behavior.
I could quote a bunch of names and articles in regards to this, but I’ll just provde the name of Brian Mustanski, Ph.D. (among others) and let you actually look for this.
From studies that I have read on the topic, men tend to be less flexible in the sexual predilections than women.
Obviously, sexuality can’t be exclusively biology, but it has a very strong biological component. Which, if you think about it, should elicit a big “duh” from the audience.
Homosexuals in Russia – Yep, according to my lovely (imaginary) wife, lots. More than she has met here in the US. However, she attended university in Yaroslavl and states matter-of-factly that Yaroslavl is something like the San Francisco of Russia when it comes to gay men. I defer to her experience in this topic.
Cyrill – Ass-hat for always suggesting or infering that the left or socialism is conflicted and always suppressing “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. Capitalism does NOT bring these things. There are plenty of capitalist societies that have oppressed these rights or ideals, including the United States at various times. Most of western Europe, Canada, and Japan is FAR more socialist than the US for example, and yet they do not suffer for these ideals being squashed or suppressed.
“It’s pretty well proven that homosexual behavior in the human species has a biological component”
Sure. EVERYTHING IN THE HUMAN SPECIES HAS A BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT. We’re biological organisms, so the observation is trivial.
“Of course it is relevant, absolutely so. In fact most interpretation and understanding of inherent and acquired characteristics in the early days was gained from the study of plants and flies. Or maybe you think that Mendel and Morgan were bullshitters, and Lysenko was right?:-) That homosexuality occurs in animals I think does point to it being inherent.”
This misunderstanding what I’m saying thing has got to stop.
The spotted eagret engaging in homosexual behavior is evidence that human sexual behavior is exclusively biologically determined ONLY IF YOU BELIEVE THAT ANIMAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS EXCLUSIVELY BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED, which it is not.
I mean, male dolphins in captivity (the thought of putting something as intelligent as a dolphin in captivity is abhorrent to me, but that’s another story) are famous for attempting to to mate with their handlers.
This is obviously a matter of deep significance, for it indicates that somewhere in the dolphin genetic code there must lie a gene for human-humping. What is even more AAAAAmazing!!!! is that human-humping must have been selected for by evolutionary pressure. What kind of bizarre sexual practices was ancient man up to for dolphins to acquire this trait? I hypothesize that ancient homo sapiens paid dolphine fish in exchange for sex. This naturally led to a situation in which dolphins that had sex with humans were better fed than their nonzoophilic counterparts and so had better chances for survival.
THE SECRET OF THE DOLPHIN HUMAN-HUMPING GENE HAS BEEN UNCOVERED! Now we can go on to figuring out why dogs hump people’s legs, the story behind which is likely to be even more sordid.
God I hate sociobiology.
Greetings. I just got back to the hotel from one of my many television appearances supporting my latest hard-hitting intellectual masterpiece, Silly Religious People, in which I update three-century-old antireligious arguments made by Voltaire and Rousseau for the modern world by repeating them verbatem. As chance might have it, I came across this discussion. Very interesting.
I am very impressed by my colleague Professor Courtappointedrussiafriendlius’s account of the origin of the dolphin human-humping gene and also saw his interest in the dog leg-humping phenomenon. Indeed this, is a great problem, one to which I have devoted of my time and considerable intellectual prowess.
I believe upon reflection that the answer to the question “why do dogs hump people’s legs?” is simple. Indeed, upon proper application of the principles of sociobiology, the answer becomes clear as a bright spring day.
The ancestors of modern dogs, it is obvious, must have inhabited wooded areas characterized by high levels of seismic activity. The vegetation of their habitat was dominated by trees with large, low-lying branches, or possibly exposed root systems, of the approximate thickness of a human leg. When one of the frequent earthquakes hit the area, any male dog that happened to be straddling the branch or root at the time would find its sperm flung violently about in all directions through the air, thus possibly impregnating large numbers of females simultaneously. Through the millions of years, the behavior of straddling a human-leg-sized branch was thus selected for to the point that it became more of the canine modus vivendi. When domesticated by human beings, dogs merely transferred this behavior onto a similarly appering subsitute.
And so another riddle falls before the relentless analytical tool that is sociobiology.
Sociobiology is, like, way better than religion.
I believe upon reflection that the answer to the question “why do dogs hump people’s legs?” is simple.
We’re hedonists. We do it because it feels good.
Note – if we had opposable thumbs, we’d use both our paws AND tongues also.
I’m just saying.
PS ~ Homos are born that way. Would you willingly choose to take it up the tail?
I’m just saying.
PPS ~ I hear the bitches in Russia are amazing. They run wild on the streets. Any chance I can get me some of that?
I better get out of here before you have to hose me down.
I’m just saying.
One apparently cannot have a serious discussion about science in this forum. You disgust me.
Cyrill – Ass-hat for always suggesting or infering that the left or socialism is conflicted and always suppressing “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. Capitalism does NOT bring these things. There are plenty of capitalist societies that have oppressed these rights or ideals, including the United States at various times.
Wally, would you like to offer examples where left upon taking power in an underdeveloped capitalist society strictly abides by principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité and does not eventually revert to a less free structure?
I did not imply (sorry if it came across that way) that capitalism alone makes a more open and free society. It’s the combination of the two. Liberalism flourishes if build on the capitalist economic system and falters if the economic (and consequently, social) system is not ready. In this sense Lenin’s (and later Mao’s) departure from classical Marxism has been a disaster.
I see no inherent contradiction between the two since I do not consider capitalism a philosophy or an ideology. Liberalism is. Comparing and juxtaposing the two would, in programming, throw a “type mismatched” error.
I also do not like to look at capitalism as a constant. What US or UK were during late 19th century is hardly the same with what they have become. That development road has not been nice and was often oppressive. Partial suspending of Habeas Corpus by such progressive liberals (in a philosophical sense and not in the sense of party affiliation) like Lincoln and Roosevelt to me are quite telling.
Yes, my view is quite linear but it only refers to systemic development and I do not want to pretend it covers and all minute details of development. Exceptions do not invalidate general rule and general directions. I see development as moving towards more individualisation both economically and socially. At some point liberté, égalité, fraternité are proclaimed but not very achievable goals. At some point they become feasible. And generally, this corresponds to development of capitalism, i.e. private property rights – the economic and social implementation of individualisation.
As for “always suggesting a conflict” that’s dialectical approach talking. There is always a conflict – in socialism in leftism, in capitalism – every object contains a contradiction. There is nothing wrong with admitting that, I think.
Most of western Europe, Canada, and Japan is FAR more socialist than the US for example, and yet they do not suffer for these ideals being squashed or suppressed.
Not now but they sure had their history. I am not sure there is much of a difference in levels of oppression between these countries and the US at the moment. Although, naturally, US is not a monolith either and what is accepted in California does not yet fly in Kansas.
Wally, would you like to offer examples where left upon taking power in an underdeveloped capitalist society strictly abides by principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité and does not eventually revert to a less free structure?
You’re really thick. Your argument is flawed and irrelevant.
There aren’t any examples of the RIGHT or LEFT “taking power in an UNDERDEVELOPED capitalist society and strictly abiding by principles of liberte, egalite, fraternite.”
In such a situation, it is too easy for whomever the leadership is, having already “taken power” to rule by diktat. Your first clues should be “taking power” and “underdeveloped”.
I could answer, the United States of America, which was a liberal revolution against the King of England, but strictly speaking, I think the US has not abided to the principles of “liberte, egalite, fraternite”. You might say France (after all, it is their phrase) but they relapsed under Napoleon .. you know, when he TOOK POWER and declared himself emperor.
My point remains, your argument is nonsense. Right or left does not define the problem.
You cling lovingly to a Randian view of the world, ascribing almost all things good to the individualism, the political “right” and capitalism, and apparently blaming all things bad to the “left”. I would have thought you might have figured out by now, there is no “left” in the United States, we have two conservative parties (by world standards), and they both fuck everything up.
You’re really thick. Your argument is flawed and irrelevant.
Sorry to disappoint, and thank you for eloquent and patient explanations.
There aren’t any examples of the RIGHT or LEFT “taking power in an UNDERDEVELOPED capitalist society and strictly abiding by principles of liberte, egalite, fraternite.
Thank you. That was my point. Obviously irrelevant and flawed when I made it and eloquent and spot on when you repeat it.
Your first clues should be “taking power” and “underdeveloped”.
Many thanks for clues. Quoting Pavel Chekhov: Isn’t this what I just said? Alameda?
You might say France (after all, it is their phrase) but they relapsed under Napoleon .. you know, when he TOOK POWER and declared himself emperor.
I might, but I would not, since before Napoleon, there was Danton, Robespierre, Marat and quite a bit of blood. You are not suggesting that these were truly bearers of liberté or right-wingers, aren’t you? Or do you think 1789 – 1799 were years of liberté?
But neither France, nor the US after the War of Independence were “developed” capitalist societies. Hence, again, my flawed and irrelevant argument. France follows the classic pattern of most revolutions that eventually revert to dictatorships – Robespierre, Cromwell, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini belated as they were. The only two that stand aside were the US and the Netherlands that strictly speaking did not have revolutions since in neither case there was a significant change in economic and social structure internally. Just external dependency was removed.
You cling lovingly to a Randian view of the world,
Oh yes, of course, Rand was such an example of admitting dialectical contradictions, of admitting that pure capitalism does not work and needs appropriate social mechanisms like anti-trust regs.
ascribing almost all things good to the individualism, the political “right” and capitalism, and apparently blaming all things bad to the “left”.
Wally, calm down, relax. I never said anything about political right. I do not operate on good or bad when talking about history. Stop extrapolating your own ideological blinds onto me. I am not a supporter of political right by any means, your “сам дурак” type argumentation misses the point.
there is no “left” in the United States
There sure is left. Quite a bit of it. I live in one of the most lefty places that would make Tony Blair look like Ronald Reagan. And they sure screwed up big time. Until now it never made it on the national level. We shall see what the celestial coir Kepelmeister does now.
“Sorry to disappoint, and thank you for eloquent and patient explanations.”
Wally’s pretty much spot on, actually.
I live in one of the most lefty places that would make Tony Blair look like Ronald Reagan.
I really wish you wouldn’t refer to those bourgeois bohemians with their $60,000 median family incomes in Santa Cruz as “left.” If they are anything like our BoBos in Santa Monica, their true class colors come out when anything threatens their property. These people are all for diversity in the abstract as long as the diverse are of their class and look just like them in style and act like them in manners, and being diverse doesn’t mean they have to lose anything. Just because they vote for the pro-business Democratic Party doesn’t make them left. Just call them what they are: liberals.
Jesus, Chrisius is making passes at Wally now!
It must be in my genetic code.
Watch out, Wally, he’s going for your leg!
There sure is left. Quite a bit of it.
No, no there isn’t.
If there was any significant political left in this country, we would have nationalized health care and it would work … like every other industrialized nation on the planet.
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
If there was any significant political left in this country, we would not be pissing away 515.4 billion dollars a year on a bloated military budget, to fight wars of choice on foreign soil. What is the threat that requires the US to spend 48% of the entire world’s military budget?
http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2008.png
If there was any significant political left in this country, we would have a public transit system that was cost-effective, reliable, and timely … like every other industrialized nation in the world.
If there was any significant political left in the US, you could raise these issues without being branded as un-American and a socialist by some flag-on-the-lapel wearing politician.
What we consider acceptable left-wing policy (Democratic party principles) in the US … is considered centrist to center-right in most of Europe, Japan, Canada, etc.
The fact there may be birkenstock-clad bourgeois bohemians (good phrase) in your area of the US (and mine) does NOT mean there is any effective political power nationally on those issues or at that end of the political spectrum.
Watch out, Wally, he’s going for your leg!
Well, if he does that, I’m sure he is doing it out of free will … not because of some chromosome.
Most of western Europe, Canada, and Japan is FAR more socialist than the US for example, and yet they do not suffer for these ideals being squashed or suppressed.
Not now but they sure had their history. I am not sure there is much of a difference in levels of oppression between these countries and the US at the moment.
Oh, you’ll have to tell us all about Royal Canadian Mounted Police CoIntelPro program.
I really wish you wouldn’t refer to those bourgeois bohemians with their $60,000 median family incomes in Santa Cruz as “left.”
Sean, I wish you would find out about Santa Cruz and its city government a bit more before basically lumping it together with Limousine left of San Francisco, Marin County or Santa Monica. Besides, you use the bourgeois moniker as if there are any proletarians left in the US to juxtapose them to, as if you yourself are something different.
Just because they vote for the pro-business Democratic Party doesn’t make them left. Just call them what they are: liberals.
No, Sean, they are not liberals, they are the left. They are hardly for liberties they do not approve of. The Santa Cruz city government has been run by socialists (not as in derogatory term GOP shrills would use) since 1979. They are hardly pro-business. Almost every large business has been chased out of the city (except for a Costco and a few supermarkets) leaving nothing but hemp bead stores and a huge budget deficit and making Santa Cruz the second least affordable city in the country. As I said earlier, left flourishes when it can suck juices from the capitalist market. Unfortunately, like in any host-parasite relationship, there is a danger that host just get killed. Government is the city’s largest single employer. That does not count a huge number of 501C3 outfits that the city (over) spends its budget on. There is precious little capitalism left aside from small retailers and eateries. And… lo and behold! The city is toast. I wonder why?
Может что в консерватории поправить?
we would have nationalized health care and it would work …
Yep, like it works elsewhere… One of my friends in Russia told me: we have free health care, that’s why it’s so expensive”. And I was thinking – that kind of health care is free in the US as well.
If there was any significant political left in this country, we would have a public transit system that was cost-effective, reliable, and timely … like every other industrialized nation in the world.
Why bother when we have cost effective private system like cars and airplanes? Public transport in those countries is hardly cheap even considering much shorter distances. And not too convenient outside of major metropolitan areas.
The fact there may be birkenstock-clad bourgeois bohemians (good phrase) in your area of the US (and mine) does NOT mean there is any effective political power nationally on those issues or at that end of the political spectrum.
Not on the national level, but there is left, quite a bit of it. Thankfully, that left is too fractured to make a coherent party and none of the things you mentioned above were rammed down everybody’s throats. And that left is also loony and paranoid. The funniest thing about the ultra left in this country is that they are almost identical to the ultra right in their xenophobia, conspiratorial fervor and paranoia.
I find it a bit disturbing that so many here follow the lead of Rush Limbaugh and use “liberal” as a derogatory label.
Oh, you’ll have to tell us all about Royal Canadian Mounted Police CoIntelPro program.
Wally, stop pulling a Clinton. Don’t you know the meaning of the word “is”?
Besides, you use the bourgeois moniker as if there are any proletarians left in the US to juxtapose them to.
What are you talking about? BoBo is a legitimate pop culture reference. Get with it, old man and stop deploying your Marxist-Leninist class dyads.
And in my book, if Santa Cruz is full of hemp bead stores, then it’s a BoBo infested cesspool. I bet its teeming with whites who think the Daily Show is an exemplar of witty left wing commentary. I knew there was a reason why I don’t visit NoCal anymore.
as if you yourself are something different.
Ooooh the class card. What do you imagine my background to be? I’m not the one constantly boasting about how contrarian I am by whining about living in “socialist” Santa Cruz. (Which I think all of us here have heard like 100 times) If you don’t like so much, then why don’t you muster some of your free choice and individual will and move.
The funniest thing about the ultra left in this country is that they are almost identical to the ultra right in their xenophobia, conspiratorial fervor and paranoia.
Well no argument there. Pacifica Radio anyone? I haven’t listen to the LA branch KPFK in several years since its been taken over by 9/11 Truth freaks. Not even for its comedic element. When I was politically active and had dealings with some of these people, I constantly thanked god that they had no chance of ever having any political power.
W. Shedd,
To your information, the US was #28 (4%) in the world in Military Spending as percent of GDP and #1 in Health Care (15%)!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_gdp-military-expenditures-percent-of-gdp
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_exp_tot_of_gdp-health-expenditure-total-of-gdp
Get with it, old man and stop deploying your Marxist-Leninist class dyads.
That’s exactly what you get if you take Marxism away from the left. They become the bobo popculture. With homegrown views like the hemp they make beads from.
I bet its teeming with whites who think the Daily Show is an exemplar of witty left wing commentary.
Right on. Santa Cruz is the ultimate lily-white city. (According to Daily Show it has the largest concentration of white men with dreadlocks) There isn’t anybody of any color there to speak of. Another good example of the disconnect between what left claims and does.
I understand, it hurts that the closest we have to real left is pathetic beyond imagine. But I’ll take your “get over with it” and raise you my “get over with it”. The left is dead, it’s a degenerate caricature of the former self. Exactly along the lines of the famous quote from 18th Brumaire.
I understand the desire to disassociate from them but it’s like with Marxists claiming USSR was not Marxist. Live with it.
Ooooh the class card.
Not at all. Just a statement, since you are obviously not a proletarian and have more then your chains to loose. You can be whatever subcategory you want to be: petty bourgeoisie, intelligentsia, whatever, but if you have a capital (a 401K, a trust fund, a mutual find) of any kind, you are one of us. You have been assimilated. Resistance is futile.
I’m not the one constantly boasting about how contrarian I am by whining about living in “socialist” Santa Cruz.
I am not whining at all and not being contrarian, since I don’t live in Santa Cruz. It is the county seat and I follow it’s politics like I am in a zoo. I live in unincorporated area where I don’t need to have a business license to worry about. Why do I want to move? I don’t work or shop in SC, the climate is great, I get daily entertainment. I am a happy guy here. Besides, I spend half of my time elsewhere anyway.
I constantly thanked god that they had no chance of ever having any political power.
Early on in my stay in the US I got briefly involved with the Libertarians, but quickly realized they were nuts. There is a reason for the two party system with a myriad of fringe ones. Ideas that are tested at the fringes and prove to be worthy eventually seep into the mainstream and either of the main two parties adopt them. Makes for a good and stable system.
Well, part of the problem in such discussions is that the same word means different things to different people. It would be great if we all pretty much agreed on the meaning of conservative, liberal, right, left, etc. Although seemingly a trivial point, I’m always amazed by how much time is wasted in arguments simply because our understanding of the same word is different. Sort of like imagining a group of people trying to solve an arithmetic problem but unbeknownst to each other they assign different numbers to the same numeral (e.g., “5″ may either be four, five or six.) Sometimes we are even aware that the a particular word means something else to our interlocutor, but out of some perverse pleasure we continue the argument without clarifying things.
This is probably not the thread for it, but I would love to hear again why you Sean are so hostile to liberalism. (Or perhaps you can link to a previous post where you wrote about it?). I’m asking because I forgot. If you are hostile to the liberal democratic process, what is it that you hope for? To advance your vision, what should be done by people who share your views and who live in countries such as the US, Canada, UK, France? (And pardon the Leninist echo of the question.)
“I’m not the one constantly boasting about how contrarian I am by whining about living in “socialist” Santa Cruz.”
Is socialist Santa Cruz a hellish dystopia of the sort socialism inevitably leads to?
Ya know, Yakov Smirnov’s career has been on the skids for some time, and there’s a reason for that. Learn from example, Cyrill!
“If there was any significant political left in the US, you could raise these issues without being branded as un-American and a socialist by some flag-on-the-lapel wearing politician.”
Or dickhead Russian immigrants.
Thanks Chrisius, I almost missed it.
Here goes.
W. Shedd, you are “un-American and a socialist”, because you want national healthcare and public transportation, and question military budget.
So there.
P.S. You also can’t get your facts straight.
If there was any significant political left in this country, we would have nationalized health care and it would work … like every other industrialized nation on the planet.
The nationalised healthcare in the UK is appalling, and AFAIK no other country has adopted the 100% nationalised model that we did. The best healthcare systems generally combine state funding with private provision.
Ya know, Yakov Smirnov’s career has been on the skids for some time, and there’s a reason for that. Learn from example, Cyrill!
It appears you look at the mirror when you posted this. А career of a comedian is way closer to a career of a one-liner drive-by blog poster, бином Hьютона.
W. Shedd, you are “un-American and a socialist”, because you want national healthcare and public transportation, and question military budget.
Heh, I misses that one too. Wally, you have lived all your life in a society where everyone can call anyone anything. Do you need a Russian immigrant to open your eyes: no matter what your views, there is always going to be someone calling you names. I personally am looking for a happy median – when the left and the right are calling me names, I am content. Peace, man.
I reject the vulgar premise presented by certain individuals here and answered by a rather rude Mr. A. Dawg, that we canines “hump” legs.
I would no more “hump” a leg than you would, I assure you. Next you’ll be accusing canines of … of … urinating on the carpet or some other foul thing.
Pull yourself together and control your base impulses, man!
Hmmm… the carpet urination issue is an interesting problem. I sense some grant money coming!
“It appears you look at the mirror when you posted this.”
This is the most brilliant retort I have ever heard.
I humped a leg once, but it was Jean Harlow. Who could blame me? That perfume she wore drove me crazy!
Honestly, I know she loved it when I did the wild thing with her gorgeous gams. The only thing standing between me and her getting together was that damn Paul Bern.
I fixed that, of course, but by then it was too late.
Sean,
Call animal control now!
Call animal control now!
I’m afraid that this thread already went to the dogs days ago. I knew it was over when A Renowned Sociobiologist joined the fray.
Speaking of Yakov Smirnoff. Can anyone believe he’s still working? http://www.yakov.com/branson/
I thought my Richard Dawkins parody was very impressive, thank you very much!
“Speaking of Yakov Smirnoff. Can anyone believe he’s still working?”
He has a right-wing radio show, doesn’t he?
Holy Crap, he still has “What a Country!” as his signature line. It’s like Pretty in Pink was still in the theaters.
“no matter what your views, there is always going to be someone calling you names.”
This is particularly true if you are a dick.
Dude, this is beyond cool. Smirniff is on facebook!
”The nationalised healthcare in the UK is appalling, and AFAIK no other country has adopted the 100% nationalised model that we did. The best healthcare systems generally combine state funding with private provision.”
I think Denmark and Norway may have 100% state care, but income tax in these countries is supposed to be brutal. The Kiwis have a heavily state-funded set-up that at least appears to work quite well. The Irish have made a total bollocks of our state system, which must cover 80% or more of the population. Meanwhile it now officially takes at least two hours of queuing to sign on the dole and at least 12 weeks to receive payment. Celtic Tiger my arse.
CD – have you been at the Starii Melnik on friday nite again?:-)
About the US health system – why arent there simply more hospitals and more competition, if it is indeed simply a money-making operation? Is it monopolised or very closed off from people setting up practices/hospitals? One would imagine a country like the US, the land of free enterprise? I find it strange that the private sector cannot meet demand at a reasonable price. It sort of doesnt obey normal supply/demand rules. At any rate, the last thing the US should do is nationalise the whole thing. If they do, prepare for bankruptcy.
“Meanwhile it now officially takes at least two hours of queuing to sign on the dole”
Two whole hours? OMG!
Ger, the US has the best hospitals and the most advance medical technologies, but it’s health system if a mess. That’s why in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality the US lags behind just about all the developed countries. The US somehow combines the worst aspect of all the systems (or falls between the chairs) so it’s both more expensive and at the same time plenty of people fall through the cracks. One of the common reasons for family bankruptcies are people falling sick with a long illnesses or being victims of accidents. After a while insurance can run out of then. When my father was dying of cancer, I met a middle class family whose main bread had cancer. They ended up declaring bankruptcy. And several months ago someone who is very close to me came to the brink of losing everything after fracturing his neck in a freak accident. He was lucky to survive, but could not work. After several months his employers stopped paying him and then stopped paying their portion of insurance payments. In a few more weeks he would have lost the insurance all together. On the nick of time the doctors decided that he’s all healed up (he was extremely lucky) and this week was his first week back at work. Him and his wife racked-up a huge debt that set them back considerably.
I don’t care how it’s accomplished or what name they’ll give it to, as long as everyone is covered and citizens have the peace of mind that they will not go broke or have to declare bankruptcy because of medical misfortunes.
“That’s why in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality the US lags behind just about all the developed countries.”
The US is at about the same level as Cuba in terms of stats. You can take this as praise of the Cuban system, excoriation of the US one, or both, as you prefer.
“I thought my Richard Dawkins parody was very impressive, thank you very much!”
Many sociobiologist/evolutionary biologist/evolutionary psychologist do not consider Dawkins much of a sociobiologist. They consider him more of a polemicist, progagandist and crusader against religion. I believe Dawkins quit doing science many years ago. Ironically, E.O. Wilson, a great biologist, a good guy, as well as the person who coined the term sociobiology, opposes Dawkins crusades against religion and thinks that there are clear evolutionary reasons why religion has been so important for us humans.
(On the other hand, ideology driven attacks against sociobiology/evolutionary behavioral studies by people such a Gould and Lewontin have largely been discredited.)
“Ironically, E.O. Wilson, a great biologist, a good guy, as well as the person who coined the term sociobiology, opposes Dawkins crusades against religion and thinks that there are clear evolutionary reasons why religion has been so important for us humans.”
Note that the idea that religion exists because it has evolutionary benefits is itself antireligious.
“Note that the idea that religion exists because it has evolutionary benefits is itself antireligious.”
No, I don’t view it that way. Not being religious does not mean that you are antireligious. And the reverse also holds, I think. Religious folks are not necessarily anti-atheism.
E.O. Wilson is not religious himself, but he acknowledges that on balance religions has served a useful purpose and he opposes atheist crusaders such a Dawkins, Hitchens and others. He think such crusades are not all helpful. This does not mean, of course, that Wilson supports the teaching of creationism and other such silly stuff. Wilson’s attitude is actually not to dissimilar to Darwin’s.
Incidentally, another well known evolutionist who shares many of E.O. Wilson’s views is D.S. Wilson (no relation.)
I actually struggled over whether to use an a- or an anti-prefix.
It assumes that religion exists because it was selected for (I’m not sure how this would work out — I’m not sure religion has been around long enough for it to be meaningful on the scale of biological evolution, unless it was shared by pre-humans or is an outgrowth of some other aspect of their behavior. Also “religion” is a very vague term.), and implies (but does not logically entail) that the claims of religion are untrue.
“(On the other hand, ideology driven attacks against sociobiology/evolutionary behavioral studies by people such a Gould and Lewontin have largely been discredited.)”
My objection sociobiology/evolutionary behavioral studies is that by nature it is extremely speculative and therefore consists almost entirely of Just-So Stories.
Actually this is a problem in all attempts to ground behavior and/or ethics in the natural world. It is not a coincidence that 95% of such analyses wind up establishing the “naturalness” of whatever society the analyst happens to live in.
I find it strange that the private sector cannot meet demand at a reasonable price.
Tim Harford explains this very well in The Undercover Economist. It has to do with asymmetrical information.
A quick (and last) on the subject of sociobiology or whatever you want to call it (basically the studying of behavior from the evolutionary perspective). First, most of the stuff done in this field has nothing to do with humans. Second, being a scientific endeavor, ideas and hypotheses stand or fall as research moves forward. And, yes, like in all the sciences, some ideas have shown to be wrong and others have gained strength. I certainly give more credence to thoughts based on empirical evidence and that are open to modification or disprove upon further scientific study, than on school of thoughts that do not lend themselves to such process.
Kolya,
thanks for the info and the stories, shocking stuff. Bad and all are things are here if we have an accident we arent doomed to debt, a fact for which I am grateful.
”“Meanwhile it now officially takes at least two hours of queuing to sign on the dole”
Two whole hours? OMG!”
Two hours is an unacceptable wait in Ireland, just outrageous. Russians may be content to purge large portions of their time on this earth waiting in queues for yet more pieces of paper and forms, we, however, arent, and as such two hours in a queue is bloody brutal. Unlike Russia, something will be done about this, like hiring more staff.
”I thought my Richard Dawkins parody was very impressive, thank you very much!””
I saw a documentary of his on tv recently and what he said made a lot of sense I thought. It was hilarious watching one holy-Joe after another stumped by his simple questions, like about dinosaurs etc. Not one of them could make a reasonable answer to anything, and quickly rose up their ”I have my faith and thats all that matters” shield.
”Tim Harford explains this very well in The Undercover Economist. It has to do with asymmetrical information.”
Thanks for that Tim. I just want to apologise in advance for Ireland taking the Six Nations crown from you this year – sorry about that:-)
“It was hilarious watching one holy-Joe after another stumped by his simple questions, like about dinosaurs etc.”
There is, of course, no chance that the interviewees were cherry-picked. For one thing, most Christians endorse the theory of evolution. Dawkins knows about as much about religion as I know about hunting mammoth and should shut his stupid pie-hole. Terry Eagleton had a really good review of him in the LRB: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
“Two hours is an unacceptable wait in Ireland, just outrageous.”
What a bunch of coddled whiners.
I’m sure I waited at least that long in the unemployment office in San Diego, or in my university to hand in my forms.
“I certainly give more credence to thoughts based on empirical evidence and that are open to modification or disprove upon further scientific study”
Sociobiology is not based on empirical evidence except in the very loosest sense, for the obvious reason that what it is trying to reconstruct is largely in the distant, and thus unavailable to observation, past. It’s like cosmology — 99% speculation.
For one thing, most Christians endorse the theory of evolution.
Recent polls show that only 39% of American’s believe in the theory of evolution, Christian or otherwise.
Even among those American Christians who do believe in evolution, 36% believe in “God-guided evolution”.
I don’t think there is strong evidence to suggest most Christians anywhere in the world believe in evolution in the same way that scientists do.
“Recent polls show that only 39% of American’s believe in the theory of evolution, Christian or otherwise.”
That’s America, with its peculiar fundamentalist varieties of Protestantism. The largest Christian denomination is that one with its headquarters in Rome, which doesn’t have a problem with evolution and hasn’t for a long time.
“Even among those American Christians who do believe in evolution, 36% believe in “God-guided evolution”.”
Well, if you’re a monotheist, everything is God-guided.
A recent Levada poll on Russians, Darwin, and Darwinism:
http://www.levada.ru/press/2009021105.html
I wonder what the evolutionary benefit of Yakov Smirnoff is.
Unlike Russia, something will be done about this, like hiring more staff.
Number of staff and queuing time in Russia seem to be inversely proportional. From my experience in banks and state bodies, more staff means more people to obtain stamps/pieces of paper from.
I just want to apologise in advance for Ireland taking the Six Nations crown from you this year – sorry about that:-)
Pah! Set your sights low, why don’t you? We’re chasing the Grand Slam.
DEVO-lution!
Okay, okay, I promised not to write on this anymore, but here I go again. Chris, I have the sense that you don’t really know what does sociobiology entails. In any event, I don’t like the word “sociobiology” because most people have preconceived ideas of what it studied. First, it seems that most folks think that sociobiology primarily studied human behavior. Not so! Very, very little of it had to do with Homo sapiens. Because of all the misconceptions and silly ideological baggage, most scientist now say evolutionary biology, behavioral ecology (which, years ago, is what I was hoping to get a PhD on), or, if humans are involved, evolutionary psychology.
Let me add that Richard Dawkins is very smart and articulate, but I’m not a fan. His 1976 book “The Selfish Gene” was an extremely influential tour de force. (To date myself, I read it within a couple of years it came out.) Interesting as it is, it’s a not scientific work. It’s an extremely well written popular science book with plenty of speculation. It was in one of the speculative parts of this work that Dawkins coined the term “meme.” (As it often happens, more often than not the current popular usage of the word meme has little resemblance to what Dawkins meant.) To be fair to Dawkins, when he was speculating he made it perfectly clear that that’s what he was doing: he was not dressing up his speculations as science. The selfish gene idea is a very powerful one, but most evolutionary scientists think it’s too reductive. In addition, although obviously catchy, in my view the use of the word “selfish” was a mistake (it implies volition, desire, and so on): it mislead many people and it had a poisoning effect on the debate.
A pernicious byproduct of Dawkins’s success is that several others authored accessible books on evolutionary biology and behavior–except that many of these books were even more speculative while not being as scrupulous in informing the reader what’s speculation and what is not. Dawkins himself has not done any science in years. Now he’s more of a bestselling evolution and atheism crusader. (Since his 1976 “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins has written at least six other books–perhaps more. Of these, I have only read “The Extended Phenotype,” shortly after it was published in the early 1980s.)
Although not a fan of Dawkins and his anti-God crusade, I’m sure he’s more than willing to debate anyone on the God and evolution issues. He is not one to cherry pick easy opponents.
“He is not one to cherry pick easy opponents.”
I haven’t seen the TV show Ger is talking about, but it sounds like he was. How else could it be if you can get them caught up on dinosaurs? A fair approach would be to talk a highly educated Christian — a Jesuit priest, say — with a PhD in biology.
“In addition, although obviously catchy, in my view the use of the word “selfish” was a mistake (it implies volition, desire, and so on): it mislead many people and it had a poisoning effect on the debate.”
As if genes had minds…
Anyway my problem with it is the sheer speculativeness. Like metaphysics and cosmology, it’s entertaining, but ultimately unverifiable. Why certain behaviors evolved rather than others is ultimately simply impossible to know, other than the truism that any behaviors that are grossly against the interest of the species will probably be weeded out.
Back to the gay thing. My original point was that the existence of homosexual behavior in nonhuman species is only relevant to whether or not homosexual nehavior in human beings is mainly or solely of biological origin if one assumes that animal homosexuality is mainly or solely or biological origin, which is unknown. It is obvious that animal sexuality is socially conditioned.
I used to have a cat who, when she went into heat, would back up to me in the “receiving” position. I am pretty sure that there was nothing in her genetic makeup that created a sexual attraction for giant primates 20 times her size.
You may all begin making pussy jokes now, you vulgarians.
“DEVO-lution!”
Best cover ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7lj7xNY0Wk
Koko the gorilla (probably the most closely attended to animal in history) is also supposedly obsessed with human breasts, but I would imagine that that is because gorillas don’t have them except when lactating (wow! look at these weird human things!) rather than a hot XXX lesbian monkey love action thing.
No, Chris. The things about homosexual behavior, etc., are NOT purely speculative. We are going around in circles, so I’ll leave it at that. (This reminds me of all those clever jokes and arguments people made against evolution.) And although I feel funny defending Dawkins (since I’m not a fan), keep in mind that Dawkins has debated plenty of highly educated and well-known scholars. He’s not shy about it. He’s a very skillful debater and he welcomes it.
A quick google search came up with this, but I’m sure there are plenty of others:
*Richard Dawkins vs. Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.
* debate between Richard Dawkins and Lord Harries of Pentregarth (formerly Bishop of Oxford)
* debate between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath (Christian theologian, with a DPhil in molecular biophysics.)
“No, Chris. The things about homosexual behavior, etc., are NOT purely speculative.”
Yes, they are. For instance, the twin thing. Twins separated at an early age are likely to share sexual orientation. Therefore, it must be biologically determined. Except that twins separated at an early age are also likely to have similar political beliefs. Which must mean that political beliefs are biologically determined, which means that political parties can stop trying to attract new supporters… erm, no.
Nobody ever said that Dawkins never debated any formidable opponents — just that this did not appear to be the case in the documentary Ger was refering to, at least from his description of it.
“(This reminds me of all those clever jokes and arguments people made against evolution.)”
I do not deny evolution; I think it is extremely likely. Socbiobiology, however, is the phrenology of the current era, inferring behavior from bumps in people’s genes.
Come to think of it, what I object to most here is the unfounded assumptions made about nonhumans (e.g., animal sexuality is all biologically determined), and then these assumptions being read into human beings.
Ironically I think this rests upon an underestimation of animal sophistication.
To sum up, I think modern scientists should be required to read Kant. It would make them much more humble.
I’m sorry, I was wrong. THIS is the coolest cover ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDI4zIywQ2U
Wow. I came across this incredible old footage of Cyrill on youtube. He was as brilliant then as he is now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y5hEKfxm4M
Well, Chris, it is clear to me that you have some preconceived ideas but little knowledge on the matter. I’m not widely read on the subject but what I wrote before about homosexuality (which is, as far I know, correct) had nothing to do with what you call sociobiology. Actually, I don’t know what sociobiology has to say about homosexuality.
Like in any other endeavor, you’ll find both arrogant and humble scientists. From my own experience, scientists at work are much more open minded and open to change than any other professionals I know of. They have to, of course, since that’s part and parcel of science itself. The scientific process is a rather humbling process: your findings and ideas are always open not only to refinement but also to total demolition.
”There is, of course, no chance that the interviewees were cherry-picked. For one thing, most Christians endorse the theory of evolution. Dawkins knows about as much about religion as I know about hunting mammoth and should shut his stupid pie-hole”
I’ll certainly grant you that the interviewees were cherry-picked and bowled over quite quickly, and tended to be on the nuttier end of the scale – one guy was actually a friend of the man who’d murdered an abortion doctor in the US a while back and was defending the murder, a pretty hopeless argument, irrespective of religion. But at the same time Dawkins did seem to know a little bit about the Bible, or at least cherry-picked the bits he didnt like and highlighted them. I dont know if ‘most Christians’ endorse the theory of evolution – for example I know myself if it is not part of Catholic teaching and that the official line is that we came from Adam and Eve. Whether most Christians believe in it or not is irrelevant – it is the official line that gets on Dawkin’s nut. And he did interview one PhD – a senior bishop in the Church of England – who had a bit of trouble reconciling his belief in the theory of evolution with his faith. This did irk Dawkins – the fact that someone obviously educated could still believe.
”Socbiobiology, however, is the phrenology of the current era, inferring behavior from bumps in people’s genes.”
Chris I think you’re being flippant here – that genetic irregularity and mutation produce atypical conditions and illness is long since proven and well past phrenology. If one chooses to ignore that the presence of a mutation gives an atypical individual and the absence does not, then we might as well throw half of science out the window altogether, and all of analytical chemistry. The gene that causes homosexuality is there; it just hasnt been found yet. Its a case of WHEN.
”What a bunch of coddled whiners. I’m sure I waited at least that long in the unemployment office in San Diego, or in my university to hand in my forms.”
”Pah! Set your sights low, why don’t you? We’re chasing the Grand Slam. ”
What-EVER!:-) You Taffies are toast and you know it. I can feel the quaking in the boots all the way from the Valleys at this moment. We WILL be Champions this year. OH YES.
”From my own experience, scientists at work are much more open minded and open to change than any other professionals I know of.”
They are, especially, as you put it, working ones. Crustier types engaged primarily in waffle or handy tenures are harder to change or sway. But guys actually doing research are always open to change. Funnily enough I have noticed that background counts for a lot. A chemist from a rural, conservative area is likely to be, well, conservative. Italian female chemists tend to be quite beautiful and wear very expensive shoes. Its funny how national steotypes kick in:-)
“for example I know myself if it is not part of Catholic teaching and that the official line is that we came from Adam and Eve.”
Maybe at the local Sunday School, but the Vatican has not had a problem with evolution for a long time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
More importantly, I think Yakov Smirnoff should join Other Russia, now that Kasyanov has bailed out. He would give them the international presence they sorely need.
Plus, the idea of seeing Smirnoff shouting “What a Country!” while being dragged off by OMON guys makes me very happy.
”Maybe at the local Sunday School, but the Vatican has not had a problem with evolution for a long time:”
We dont have Sunday Schools here.
So which is it – we came from apes, or were made by God? I cannot possibly see how Darwinism and the Bible are compatible. Are they taking the piss or something?
The American resistance to Darwinian evolution always baffled me. And it’s clear that the main reason for it is religious. There is a nice little chart by the PEW Research Center at
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution
According to the chart the percentages according to religious affiliation of those who accept evolution in the US is as follows:
81 percent of Buddhist
80 percent of Hindus
77 percent of Jews
72 percent of the unaffiliated
58 percent of Catholics
54 percent of Eastern Orthodox
51 percent of Mainline Protestants
45 percent of Muslims
38 percent of Black Protestants
24 percent of Evangelical Protestants
22 percent of Mormons
8 percent of Jehova Witnesses
I was surprised that only 72 person of the unaffiliated accepted evolution. With respect to evolution (and science in general) the Catholic Church is much more enlightened than, say, the Born Agains. A while ago I read, though, that the current pope thinks the Catholic Church went too far and he wants to restate the official position to something considerably less accepting of evolution.
“we came from apes, or were made by God?”
Ger, I’m no expert here, but I think many people do not see any contradiction. This issue is much more problematic with those religions that insist on the literal interpretation of the Bible (primarily Evangelical Protestants, Baptists and so on.)
“So which is it – we came from apes, or were made by God?”
Why is there a contradiction?
“I cannot possibly see how Darwinism and the Bible are compatible. Are they taking the piss or something?”
They are only imcompatible if you think that the Bible (in particular Genesis) is literally true, which Christian intellectuals have never believed. The Church Fathers were interpreting the Bible allegorically almost 2000 years ago. They weren’t idiots.
Sean, what kind of sources are you using? ? ?
See the correct information:
“According to nationwide opinion poll carried by VCIOM in 2006, 44% of respondents consider Russia “a common house of many nations” where all must have equal rights, 36% think that “Russians should have more rights since they constitute the majority of the population”, 15% think “Russia must be the state of Russian people”. However the question is also what exactly does the term “Russian” denote. For 39% of respondents Russians are all who grew and were brought up in Russia’s traditions; for 23% Russians are those who works for the good of Russia; 15% respondents think that only Russians by blood may be called Russians; for 12% Russians are all for who Russian language is native, for 7% Russians are adepts of Russian Christian Orthodox tradition.”
http://wciom.ru/novosti-analitika/press-vypuski/press-vypusk/single/3772.html
(in Russian)
Evgeny, I’m assuming that you’re referring this
“More than 50% support the idea that ethnic Russians should have privileges over other ethnic groups,” Alexander Verkhovsky of the SOVA Center tells Harding. “More than 50% believe that ethnic minorities should be limited or even expelled from their region.”
Note that I was quoting what Verkhovsky told Harding. That was the source. How he came up with this, I don’t know.
“Note that I was quoting what Verkhovsky told Harding. That was the source. How he came up with this, I don’t know.”
As I pointed out, the claim is almost mathematically impossible given that 20% of rossiyanin are non-Russian and another large percentage is of mixed parentage, making a 50%+ figure highly unlikely. This should jump out at you.
I suspect that this was a poll IN MOSCOW. Sure wasn’t taken in Tatarstan.
Off topic in case anyone here is curious: Chavez, on his tenth consecutive year as Venezuela’s president, just won a referendum for an unlimited number of presidential terms. The result was about 55 percent vs. 45 percent. The campaign was obscenely lopsided in terms of control of media and advertisement, and yet the opposition managed to garner 45 percent of the vote. Here is what I wrote elsewhere a day or two before the referendum:
Here is why it’s a terrible idea to do away with terms limits in a country with Venezuela’s history and strong presidential system:
The weight of history cannot be ignored. Until 1958 Venezuela had a long history of dictators and caudillos. Moreover, the Venezuelan president is much more powerful than a British PM, as well as the US and French presidents. Venezuelans knew their history and that’s why after the dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez fled to the US in 1958, a newly democratic Venezuela introduced terms limits.
Before Chavez came to power Venezuela was a corrupt democracy with a strong presidential system tempered by term limits. To be specific, after a five year presidential term, a person had to wait ten years (two terms) before running again–a good precaution considering Venezuela’s past. Nowadays Venezuela is still corrupt, but because of the constitutional changes introduced by Chavez the presidency is even stronger than before, presidents can run for a second consecutive term, and presidential terms are now six instead of five years. But even that is not enough for Chavez. Now he wants to eliminate all presidential term limits. Looking at the past, this is not a good idea. I disagree with those who call him a dictator. He’s not. At least not yet. And I hope never. Do not forget, though, that it was Chavez’s 1992 coup attempt that broke a thirty year streak of no military attempts to take over. (Despite a couple of dozen deaths, Chavez served a mere two years years in prison before being pardoned.)
The Venezuelans who joyously overthrew their last military dictator in 1958 knew their own weaknesses. In addition to the temptations of becoming too fond of being called “el presidente”, Venezuelans were too aware of their tradition of corrupt governments. They knew it was a bad idea to have the same person (and party) controlling the treasury for too long. Alas, Chavez and the Chavistas are a good example of this. For instance, Chavez is a self-proclaimed socialist but his once poor parents and brothers are now rich landowners. Chavez is indeed charismatic and has the common touch. To claim, however, that he’s more democratic and less authoritarian than his 1958-98 predecessors is plain wrong. And by saying that I’m by no means defending the corrupt system that preceded Chavez.
(A trivia note: until Chavez, we have to go back to the 1930s to find a Venezuelan leader who has governed the country for ten or more consecutive years.)
In other words, democracy is good, except when the people democratically decide to do things that you don’t agree with.
“In other words, democracy is good, except when the people democratically decide to do things that you don’t agree with.”
Snarky and wrong, Chris, but you know that anyway. I was not a fan of Venezuela’s democracy before Chavez because it was not democratic enough. Partly because of its strong presidency Venezuela’s young democracy (only since 1958) was quite flawed, especially when compared with, say, Western Europe, Canada, US, etc. As I made it clear, one of its few “checks and balances” was term limits. Well, Chavez made a strong presidential system even stronger and now he got rid of term limits. A good thing for Venezuela? Definitely not. Why? For reasons I explained in my previous comment.
The lack of term limits would have not been so problematic if Venezuela had a system such as in the UK in which the PM periodically shows up in Parliament and is mercilessly grilled by the opposition, or even if the presidency “merely” had the power of the US presidency.
Venezuela went through several elections and referenda in the last ten years. Ironically, the results have been the weakening of liberal democratic institutions (no big loss for many of you in this blog.) And gradually Chavez and his minions increased their control of the electoral process itself. Incumbents anywhere hold a certain advantage, but the manner in which Chavez abuses his incumbency to control the electoral process is obscene. (I’m not claiming that the counting of the votes itself was fraudulent. I’m confident he did get those votes.) Anyway, as screwed up and corrupt as it was, Venezuela was MORE democratic during the 1958-98 years (before Chavez) than it is now.
Lastly, Chavez loves to talk and talk and talk. But he does not permit to be challenged in debates. And when was the last time he had to answer a tough question during a Venezuelan press conference? It was a few years ago when a young British reporter surprised him with a somewhat challenging question (compared to what a US president has to handle, the question was perfectly reasonable and polite.) Chavez hated it and started a long diatribe.
(By the way, I was off by a bit: Chavez won by either 8 or 9 percentage points, not 10 points as I initially reported.)
Is it even remotely possible (getting back to the original topic of the post) that unhappy labor unions could actually become “Putin’s worst nightmare”? Seems like a topic for the regulars on here to sink their teeth into…
Is it even remotely possible (getting back to the original topic of the post) that unhappy labor unions could actually become “Putin’s worst nightmare”?
Perhaps, unless they are declared illegal. We’ve recently taken up a salary dispute with our management, with the “unofficial” response from the Gazprom representative that we are organising illegally in just discussing the issue together, and we could face disciplinary action for using “company resources”, meaning emails, to communicate.
Last time I read the labour code, we were perfectly within our rights to do what we’re doing, but since when did the labour code matter in Putin’s Russia (unless, of course, a foreign company is concerned)? Personally, I am not interested in organising with other workers beyond getting together to discuss the issues and presenting a case to the management. But my experience here might be a good indication as to how the Russian government might deal with uppity workers daring to organise in the future.
“Last time I read the labour code, we were perfectly within our rights to do what we’re doing, but since when did the labour code matter in Putin’s Russia (unless, of course, a foreign company is concerned)?”
Erm, when did the labor code matter under Yeltsin’s Russia? This habit of prefacing everything in Russia one does not like with “Putin’s” must stop.
As any Communist will tell you at length and ad nauseum, this is a “post-communist Russia” thing.
Erm, when did the labor code matter under Yeltsin’s Russia?
Enough for him to have gone to the trouble of getting his government to draw it up and sign it.
The code was not followed, Tim. This was notorious. As I am sure you know the code was also revised under Putin back in 2001, which led too much Communist agonizing (“the labour code of slavery” was the catchphrase). Curious that he would bother rewriting the code if he thought it didn’t matter.
As an aside, as to all the talk about gangs of crazed fascists/outraged labor unions/packs of roaming wild wolves supposedly being so-and-so’s worst nightmare.
When was the last time that gangs of crazed fascists/outraged labor unions/packs of roaming wild wolves actually brought down a government?
Personally, I am not interested in organising with other workers beyond getting together to discuss the issues and presenting a case to the management.
Many employers tend to interpret this as the first step to forming union, whether it is or not.
Labor law doesn’t matter much anywhere when it comes to union organizing. When I was at UC Riverside and we teaching assistants got nasty letters from the Chancellor threatening our future employment and a bunch of other nightmare scenarios if we organized a TA union. To threatening a person’s employment for organizing a union is illegal of course. We got a union, the threats never materialized, but it did scare a number of graduate students from favoring a union.
This labor union thing reminded me of something. Sean, several days ago you wondered what was the point of protests if protesters are not necessarily interested in seizing power. I tried to answer in my own way. I’m still puzzled at your question, so I want to go back to it. Isn’t it clear that there are many perfectly defensible reasons for wanting to protests without necessarily wanting to seize power? For me the answer is an unambiguous yes. Would you mind to elaborate on how you view this? If I remember correctly for Lenin the whole point of actions such as protests is to eventually seize power. I mean, the goal was to seize power and protests was just one of the tools (or weapons) used to achieve the goal. Do you see this issue through a Leninist lense?
Let’s say a labor union organized a strike to improve the working conditions at their factory. And, lo and behold, the strike was successful and the workers got the improvements they wanted. This is obviously a good result. Perhaps someone like Lenin, though, would be irritated or unhappy about it if he fears that by improving their own lives the workers may not be as interested in seizing power. He may fear that the workers, instead of zealous proletarians, are becoming more bourgeois. While the whole point for the workers was to improve their own lives (and they did), the point for the Lenin figure is to seize power.
I think Sean probably was talking about people whose stated aim is to take state power, like Limonov or Zyuganov. (Zyuganov at least participates in the political process, so one could argue that from his POV protests increase visibility and thus hopefully votes.)
I also think he meant antigovernment protests, not strikes.
“He may fear that the workers, instead of zealous proletarians, are becoming more bourgeois.”
I’m not sure this is actually possibly according to Marxist-Leninist theory, but that is a nitpick.
I don’t disagree with you Kolya. As I agree with Lenin’s position that protests are a tactic toward an ultimate goal. The problem as I see it is that protest has become the end in themselves. In my view, protest has been subsumed into the logic of state’s hegemony. They’ve become part of the script, if you will, in the interplay between power and the people. It’s a tactic that has become a strategy.
My points about seeking state power was a critique of this tendency not just among the Russian “oppositionists” but amongst most social movements in the West. Frankly, many of these movements hem and haw about injustice and rights with snappy slogans etc but they don’t have the wherewithal or the guts to actually take the burden of power. This is why they will always remain opposisitionist and reactive rather than proactive. There is a certain comfort in remaining reactive. It’s easy to criticize and destroy, it’s much harder and more precarious to actually build something that will concretely address and improve people’s lives.
So yes there are a lot of very good reasons to protest without wanting to seize power (though I think the latter should always be the ultimate goal for any political movement even in the abstract. And if not seize, then command a portion of it). But to gather a bunch of people in the streets to listen to speeches, chant slogans, and get a beating by the cops only to have everyone go home is a lost opportunity and no substitute for real political organizing. Other Russia is just one example among many. Yeah you can denounce Putin but isn’t the real point to go beyond Putin in spite of him. Why call for his resignation when there are a lot of very real things that can be done now. In my view, protest without subsequent organization is rendered the former a narcissistic act. Politics without power as a goal is merely masturbation.
Say what one will about Chavez (and I’m no big fan of his) but at least he had the guts to take the burden of state power. Or take a more politically correct example. According to the popular narrative, the American Civil Rights movement was successful because of protest. That’s bullshit. It was successful because a lot of people, mostly women through their churches, went and organized, talked, and communicated with people. It was only after years of painstaking organization did they go and protest. King’s March on Washington would haven’t done a thing without those years of organization. Or better yet, look at the Christian Right in the US. They took power through a long term passive revolution that began in the 1970s. They never bothered with protesting on a mass scale. Or for an Eastern European example see Solidarnosc in Poland (the fact that Kasparov etc all think of themselves as a Russian Solidarnosc is laughable as it is opportunist marketing to naive Westerners).
But while I have Leninist sympathies, different historical and political conditions require different tactics. Those who think they can simply reproduce the Leninist model are ignorant and frankly believe too many myths. Especially since Lenin’s success was in spite of the Bolshevik Party. Their central organizational role was only written into the Russian Revolution after the fact. Lenin was successful not because of his notion of vanguardism or professional revolutionaries, but because he was flexible and daring enough to see the soviets as a basis for state power and not just some debating society or watchdog.
But that is all ancient history. Revolution or taking power need not be an apocalyptic moment. I’m more Gramscian in regard to political movements. Meaning, that there are times for wars of movement (protests, networks, and whatever is the current anti-globalist Hardt and Negri speak) and times for wars of position. Right now, political movements should take up tactics of position. They should be about capturing spaces, being proactive, offering alternative structures, organizations, and collectivities within society and despite the state and its ruling classes. This is why I stress labor unions and similar organizations as important centers of political warfare. In my view, at this historical juncture, protest should be the last not the first act in a long process of social change.
Basically, people should always organize together to improve their lives. I just don’t think they should wait for the state to hear their cries to do it.
Sean,
You seem to be speaking contradictory things from both sides of your mouth. I get an image of Lenin prancing around in a pink tutu.
Thanks Candide, I take that as a compliment. And Lenin dancing in a pink tutu would certainly be a sight to see.
“Frankly, many of these movements hem and haw about injustice and rights with snappy slogans etc but they don’t have the wherewithal or the guts to actually take the burden of power.”
I think one reason for this that, if they actually were to take power, they would quickly discover that injustice is not as easily irredicable as they wish to believe it is. (Cf. Hegels discussion of the Beautiful Soul.)
I am going to get trounced in entering this discussion – as I was never a polysci-type…but, here goes:
I tried to use Sean’s framing in thinking about the “Green Movements” underway in the US. Under that umbrella term I group everything from John Muir’s Sierra Club to the US Green Building Society to the Sustainable Fisheries Society (brought kids to the Monterey Bay Aquarium today – such a great place!) In the U.S, we don’t have anything like Germany’s Green Party; but we do have these groups. And to paraphrase Sean they are “capturing spaces, being proactive, offering alternative structures, organizations, and collectivities within society and despite the state and its ruling classes.” Will this ever build into a ‘Green Party’ capable of seizing power? I think there is potential for that. Taken collectively and over the long term, I think what they are doing is more powerful than demonstrating in the streets.
Though once docent at the aquarium shared with me that time for demonstrating in the streets is near: lack of infrastructure maintenance in cities like Pacific Grove and Salinas is leading to regular and significant raw sewage spills. Yet, stalemate continues in Sacramento. Whoops, what does this have to do with Russia? Well the same stuff is happening there.
…so
Will this ever build into a ‘Green Party’ capable of seizing power? I think there is potential for that. Taken collectively and over the long term, I think what they are doing is more powerful than demonstrating in the streets.
I agree and hope that potential is one day realized. This is what frustrated me so much with the Nader campaign in 2000. Here was a perfect moment to capitalize and for some reason Nader walked away or the Greens didn’t harness what they earned. Granted, it wasn’t all Ralph’s fault. The Bush v. Gore debacle and the Democrats essentially blaming Nader for their political failure took a lot of steam out of the Greens. That and those on the left decided to go all “popular front” against Bush in 2004 (Something I succumbed to myself). But those events appeared to be a death knell for the Greens. I’ve remember that they did gain some headway in local elections but I doubt they were able to sustain it. At any rate, its not about elections per se, it’s about using elections to increase concrete organizing. (Maybe Chris knows this, but when I was in the SPUSA, I used to wonder why David McReynold’s kept mounting Presidential campaigns. I though it was a waste of resources. It was explained to me that these campaigns were an opportunity to get exposure. A limited though sound tactic.) Tragically, the fact that the environment is now politically mainstream and the Green Party is nowhere to be found is a testament to how much ground they’ve lost since 2000. It is also tragic that many of the groups you mention, and I would include labor unions in this, sacrifice short term benefits to long term organizing by relying on the Democratic Party.
On a Russia note, I would point out that labor unions and the Auto-activists in the Far East have turned to the KPRF. I think that the KPRF is making a good move by embracing their causes. This is basically what Russia’s liberals would do that is if they actually cared about working people, which they don’t given their embrace of neoliberalism. Actually, I have to say that of all the Russian liberals, Kasparov isn’t the worse. He’s nothing more than a cartoon character. The real slime imho are Milov and Nemtsov.
Sean, thank you for the helpful reply. A lot of it makes sense. My apologies for not giving you a more interesting response. As you know, I hate Lenin and his legacy. But he was indeed a single-minded and determined leader who achieved his goal.
Speaking of the Greens, when I lived in California (for three years) I was actually a party member for a couple of years. Disgusted by their ineffectual and stupid bickering I left and registered as a Democrat. And I have to say that although not a fan of Gore, I’m one of those who thinks that we have to thank Nader for eight years of a disastrous Bush. There was indeed a big difference between Gore and Bush. Perhaps some day the US will have instant run off voting (IRV.) Since we are far from any such thing, it’s clear that in a contested state we should vote for the least bad of the two main choices. Unless, of course, you believe in “чем хуже, тем лучше.”
Labor law doesn’t matter much anywhere when it comes to union organizing.
In the UK it does, and I suspect it does in the US too, hence the threats you received never materialised.
“Maybe Chris knows this, but when I was in the SPUSA, I used to wonder why David McReynold’s kept mounting Presidential campaigns.”
It was at the command of his cats.
In the UK it does, and I suspect it does in the US too, hence the threats you received never materialised.
The violation of the law wouldn’t have been denying certain people employment after a union was formed. There are many reasons a grad student doesn’t get a teaching assignment. The violation of the law was the threat, which went unpunished.
Here’s an interesting article about Starbucks’ union busting tactics. Who knew? And the baristas are trying to form a union through the IWW. Nice!
The violation of the law was the threat, which went unpunished.
Empty threats going unpunished. Terrible.
As I agree with Lenin’s position that protests are a tactic toward an ultimate goal. The problem as I see it is that protest has become the end in themselves.
Protests used to be a way of rousing the masses into action. An organized mob, with the potential to veer off into an unorganized mob.
Now, I think protests have become a form of marketing. No doubt any particular groups organization and leadership helps it prevail.
But these days, money and lobbying win the legislative day. And protests are a way of putting your topic in the news and into public discourse.
In its present state, it is just a form of soft marketing.
Soon instead of protests, groups will just underwrite the Diane Rehm show on NPR.
Click to see More Protesting below.
http://stickerpatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-at-dobson-high.html
I bet Diane Rehm could beat up Richard Dawkins in a fight.
>>>On a Russia note, I would point out that labor unions and the Auto-activists in the Far East have turned to the KPRF. I think that the KPRF is making a good move by embracing their causes.
Actually, here in Khabarovsk, authorities didn’t allow or sanctioned any meetings of both TIGER activists or KPRF.
(TIGER is a grassroot movement as Sean has written about them already.)
The powers-that-be just didn’t touch babushkas from KPRF while TIGER had a severe blow.
You can read it at their site:
https://the-right.org/