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.
”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/