I wish I would have seen Yulia Latynina’s Moscow Times editorial earlier. I would have found someway to incorporate it into my post on the Ukrainian election. No matter, the op-ed stands on its own. The beauty of Latynina’s rant, Letting Poor People Vote is Dangerous, is that she’s basically saying what I think every Western liberal wants to say, but can’t because it’s politically incorrect. I guess this is one reason why we should actually thank Latynina. Such honesty, no matter how despicable, is nonetheless refreshing. It’s a rare moment when class war toward the poor hangs all out at a time when its Western warriors shroud their class turpitude with identity politics.
Here’s a snippet to get a taste of her raving class hatred:
Viktor Yanukovych’s victory in Sunday’s presidential election — not unlike the victories of former Chilean President Salvador Allende, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Adolf Hitler — once again raises doubt about the basic premise of democracy: that the people are capable of choosing their own leader. Unfortunately, only wealthy people are truly capable of electing their leaders in a responsible manner. Poor people elect politicians like Yanukovych or Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
When the Orange Revolution hit Ukraine five years ago, the people arose in a united wave and did not allow themselves to be deceived by the corrupt elite. That elite had reached an agreement with the criminals and oligarchs of Donetsk to make a minor criminal, who could not string two sentences together, the successor to former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
I love this. Blame the poor. Grouping Allende with Ahmadinejad and Hitler!? WTF!? That’s okay. It’s not like Latynina was ever considered very smart. Fake-rage isn’t necessary here. It’s better to read between the lines to get at her true message. Only wealthy people, she says, are truly capable of electing leaders in a responsible manner. That’s true. Time and time again they use their wealth and influence “responsibly” (i.e. according to rational self-interest) to get leaders elected who will bend over backwards to protect their wealth and influence. The wealthy are not the most class conscious for nothing. Therefore, if this is truly the case, then such concrete class based materialism should be met with equally concrete class based materialism. This is why, as Zizek recently wrote, “Our Thesis 11 should be: in our societies, critical Leftists have hitherto only succeeded in soling those in power, whereas the real point is to castrate them . . .”
Then there is this comment, wholly based on the imagined America so fantasized by Russian liberals: “Can you imagine U.S. voters putting a leader in the White House who is a puppet of the ruling elite and criminal clans?”
Hey, Yulia, as the American people–from Tea Partyers to progressive dreamers–are starting to realize in their own particular ways: Yes, we can imagine it. It happens every election. Our leaders are just more adept at hiding the strings.
Let us not worry dear readers, Latynina isn’t completely down on the dark masses. They do have some role to play in the world-historical class struggle.
Poor people are capable of feats of bravery and revolution. They can storm the Bastille, overthrow the tsar or stage an Orange Revolution.
The rabble play their mob role well. But actually trust them with power? No way, apparently that is only for more civilized people.
With Latynina’s missive, it’s nice to see that Russian liberalism hasn’t matured since the nineteenth century. That’s a good thing because in the absence of reification is the presence of immediacy. It’s no wonder the muzhik was so happy to string up Russia’s liberal intellgenty when the opportunity arose and accept the excesses as mere collateral damage. Frank editorials like this prove that another good stringing appears to be in order.
When I read the “Can you imagine U.S. voters…” bit I thought for sure she was being sarcastic. Most of the Russians I talk to have a much more cynical attitude towards the American electoral process.
I don’t even know how you manage to read Latynina’s work. I could probably count the number of articles of hers I’ve finished on the fingers of one hand. You’re a hero.
Speaking of Russian liberals stuck in the 19th century (i.e. who haven’t managed to yet wrap their heads around the PC concept), I think Novodvorskaya takes the cake.
This is just brilliant. Brilliant! I think the same base instinct that makes some people enjoy watching home videos of people tipping and falling makes me enjoy reading articles like Latynina’s. I should be angry with her for hating the poor, but comments like “Can you imagine U.S. voters putting a leader in the White House who is a puppet of the ruling elite and criminal clans?” make me just want to laugh out loud and do a dance and make a toast. I don’t know why. I once met a mentally ill man who told me that even though he lived in a hospital, he felt free because his mind had finally flown out of his head. Didn’t have to worry about it anymore. I felt a kind of simultaneous horror and amazement, and a giddiness that the rules of logic and reason had been completely thrown out. This is how Yulia’s article makes me feel.
Latynina is like the young journalist in the movie ‘shattered glass’, but 20 years onwards, having totally lost the sense of moral integrity in her work. She has been given appreciation for her made up facts and imagined theories for decades. That’s her reality. I doubt she really cares about what she writes. She does make sure that what sg=he writes is shocking. And yes, she did it again.
Unfortunately there is a large readership who follows the logic that anything the Russian state says is deceitful and that anything an independent journalist in Russia says is true. Latynina has branded herself as ‘independent’ and thereby acquired the license to make a good living out of writing her fantasies down.
The problem bigger than Latynina is that there are (still) media outlets in Russia whose identities are so dependent on their self image of independence that they feel they need to publish authors who are explicitly critical of the authorities (or the message of the authorities) in order to sustain their readership. Staying “independent” replaces civilized journalistic ethics.
Paradoxically, many federal Russian newspapers are much more mature in their coverage than a Moscow Times founded by foreigners.
No way she was being serious…
I can’t find any indication that she isn’t serious. Since she idealizes Amerika so much she should hurry and get her Republican Party card, since according to Ames, some Reps advocate something similar:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145648/republicans_at_highest_levels_really_want_to_do_away_with_democracy_for_all
Sean, may be it would be easier to allow American Democrats/Republicans to have a single seat in the Russian state Duma? At least, it would involve no intermediaries, who are the evil.
For being allowed to vote, I would make compulsory rating over 100 in an IQ test.
Todo esto estaría muy bien, si no fuera porque la lengua y la toponimia son entidades vivas que evolucionan. Si nos ponemos tiquismiquis, seguro que tampoco se llamó nunca Sierra de Guadarrama hasta la invasión árabe, así que, si queremos hablar con propiedad, deberíamos llamar a la sierra por su nombre latino. O no, tal vez debiéramos remontarnos a la lengua vernácula de las tribus ibéricas preindoeuropeas que habitaron la zona.
More inane rantings from Latynina (it appears her disdain for facts extends beyond Russian politics):
Great post. If you feel like some self-inflicted torture, you can listen to Yulia explain herself on her radio show:
http://www.echo.msk.ru/blog/video/656327-echo/
She also addresses her recent claims in her latest Moscow Times op-ed, where she said that liberals need to stop claiming (1) that Putin bombed the apartments in 1999, and (2) that Gaidar saved the country from civil war and starvation in the 90s.
this reminds me of pobedonotsev
http://pirate.shu.edu/~knightna/imperialrus/pobedonotsev.htm