Counterterrorism agencies are grappling with a new generation of young people who are consuming ultraviolent content produced by extremist groups and their supporters.
Idk, Russia seems to be taking a lot from the fascist playbook.
It’s different, Russia has basically a not very old hereditary elite, families of former communists willing to believe they are some kind of smart mafia, while in fact they are thieves. They have a really sensitive collective ego, and are desperately trying to prove they are worth some respect, at least in the form of fear. They are not real fascists, that elite, they are just mimicking fascists to try to get some of that respect, because fascists seem respected, “real”, for them.
It’s the good old inferiority complex of the Soviet elite, same reason why Baltic countries were made some sort of nice cleaned up version of USSR for westerners, or why there existed that parallel infrastructure of comfortable existence for foreign communists living in the USSR, or why that elite was measuring their status by ability to get something from abroad. They always felt that their own thing is not real.
It maybe goes to the very root, where actual Bolsheviks around year 1917 were mostly Germanophiles, and their ideal state was some idealized communist version of the German Empire, scaled for the planet. Their intention was to only start the revolution in Russia, bring it to Germany and let it develop somehow.
Sorry for many words.
I mean, that’s one of the traits of fascism by Eco, but in his list it wasn’t as capitalized.
It maybe goes to the very root, where actual Bolsheviks around year 1917 were mostly Germanophiles, and their ideal state was some idealized communist version of the German Empire, scaled for the planet. Their intention was to only start the revolution in Russia, bring it to Germany and let it develop somehow.
That’s fascist though.
Communism doesn’t require spreading, and once you put people in charge to spread any ideology at the expense of the people, you’re fascist, since fascism is generally putting the needs of the “state” (however you define that) above the needs of the people. If you look at the rhetoric coming from Russia about the war in Ukraine, that’s pretty much exactly what we see: we need to do this for the benefit of Russia (not Russians). They’re appealing to a national identity, not any sense of pragmatic benefits for the people.
The same is largely true for the USSR. At the start it may have been a worker revolution, but it quickly devolved into a “sacrifice for the good of the nation” type situation. After it fell, the elite took the place of the state and largely continued with that same mantle. It’s always been about doing what’s best for Russia, not what’s best for Russians. If it was about what’s best for Russians, they probably would’ve joined NATO and maybe the EU, because so much of their trade is with Europe. But that would destroy the chance for Russia to stay relevant as a world superpower.
We have the same type of problem here in the US. I would say we’re probably not quite as far down that path as Russia because we have a strong-enough economy to actually support our imperialist endeavors (so it’s less of a hit to the average person), but there’s still the focus on the needs of the nation instead of the needs of the people:
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
JFK
That’s completely backwards. We should be asking what value the government is providing for us, and ideally strip away everything else. Is bombing Houthis in Yemen helping us? How? What about supporting Israel’s war in Gaza? Why should I be sacrificing myself for a country that does things I disagree with?
That whole “sacrifice for the good of the nation” is absolutely stupid. Sacrifice because it makes you and those you love better off in the long run. If you’re attacked by an oppressive regime, fighting against the regime is better than allowing them to subjugate you. That’s not “sacrificing for your country,” that’s sacrificing to prevent an even worse situation.
Communism doesn’t require spreading, and once you put people in charge to spread any ideology at the expense of the people,
It was a common idea that socialism in just one country is not sustainable. The forces threatened by it will destroy it. It was also a common idea that if we unite people in classes and if planned economy is supposed to be more fair and bureaucracy more fair that self-ownership and centralized democracy more fair than decentralized, then group’s majority can be assumed to be the group. And that it’s needed to first conquer the world and then build communism. USSR was supposed to be a conventional, not communist, state, aimed at conquering the world and then building communism.
The same is largely true for the USSR. At the start it may have been a worker revolution, but it quickly devolved into a “sacrifice for the good of the nation” type situation.
It was “for the good of the future” usually, if you look at something like Pavel Kogan’s poetry. And again, that kind of marxists thought even before USSR that the collective is the person. That evolution is incrementing levels. From a person to a collective, from a collective to a centralized nation, from that to a centralized world. From that to space travel and many worlds. That’s why, in their opinion, their ideology was progressive.
The way it was presented as humanist was that it will be more efficient, production-wise, and thus will make everyone happier through having nice things. That’s where the Soviet and ex-Soviet envy and pride in education\spirituality comes from, first communist ideology promised that we’ll drop all morality and and jump to future, and for that we’ll live better and it won’t matter who says what, and then it turned out that they didn’t start living better. Thus those attempts to present Soviet communist ideology as more moral, while it was completely materialist and demonstratively nihilist, didn’t touch upon good and evil at all, only factories and centralized organization allowing bigger efficiency (didn’t work). An inversion.
Like some misguided idea of Azimov’s Empire.
If it was about what’s best for Russians, they probably would’ve joined NATO and maybe the EU,
No chance for Russia to join the EU without cleansing out that elite. Nobody wants to let in such a big bunch of thieves with ability to make their own rules. Of course, they’ve already let in some with the Baltic states, and they (the EU bureaucrats dreaming of similar power) really like that bunch, but fortunately people like Kaja Kallas and UvdL don’t make all the weather yet.
NATO even less likely, NATO’s goal is maintaining world dominance of its existing members.
But that would destroy the chance for Russia to stay relevant as a world superpower.
No it wouldn’t. It would make its resources, including human resources, use so much more efficient that it would quadruple in weight probably.
If you’re attacked by an oppressive regime, fighting against the regime is better than allowing them to subjugate you. That’s not “sacrificing for your country,” that’s sacrificing to prevent an even worse situation.
It depends. There might be a situation where a similar own bunch of thieves beholds with glee how their competition in their own society vanishes on the frontlines. Then after some time that bunch makes all the deals good for them and not for you.
No, individualism is always better. You are the person you know best, and the meaningful good deeds you can do are all near yourself and in your own context.
It was a common idea that socialism in just one country is not sustainable
Sure, and it was always an excuse to snap up power. Socialism works even in one company, so why wouldn’t it work in one nation? You can still have competitive markets between countries with different economic systems, the USSR just chose to go down the path of control instead of the path of competition.
Yeah, they eventually Stalin got his way and switched to the “socialism in one country” strategy, but that didn’t really mean much IMO since the USSR was still quite aggressive in pushing other countries to join the revolution.
No chance for Russia to join the EU without cleansing out that elite
Absolutely. But if the Russian elites really wanted what’s best for Russians, they would’ve stepped down and improved ties with Europe.
No it wouldn’t. It would make its resources, including human resources, use so much more efficient that it would quadruple in weight probably.
Idk, if they join NATO, they wouldn’t have nearly the excuse to retain a large military and have top-down control since they’re largely protected militarily. I don’t think Russia really knows how to embrace freedom, since they’ve had authoritarianism for pretty much forever, from the Tsars to the USSR to Putin. If they did embrace freedom, then yeah, maybe they’d dramatically increase their economic power and become a formidable force given their vast amount of natural resources. I just don’t see that happening.
Idk, if they join NATO, they wouldn’t have nearly the excuse to retain a large military and have top-down control since they’re largely protected militarily.
Not that large really, it has large budgets, mostly embezzled, but I’m not sure even now one can call Russia more militarized than something like Israel or Turkey or USA. All those conscripts doing their service mostly contribute to numbers and someone’s ego and criminal power (they are usable to suppress riots or do manual labor, if something), not defense. Ukraine, a pretty corrupt country itself, is doing well enough against that military.
Russia’s military is mediocre, and for its size and economic power just miserable. Certainly those in Kremlin wouldn’t even laugh at this, because for their goals and intentions it’s exactly as it should be.
Top-down control is not a matter of excuses, it’s a matter of those having it deciding what matters.
And to be honest, NATO doesn’t seem to be reliable enough in today’s world, alliances and agreements are used as toilet paper every day, sometimes guaranteed or signed by pretty important parties. So nah, it would have plenty of excuses.
I don’t think Russia really knows how to embrace freedom, since they’ve had authoritarianism for pretty much forever, from the Tsars to the USSR to Putin.
That’s not entirely true, Russia between 1905 and 1914 was free enough, and Russia for a couple decades before 1905 was much better in terms of freedom, checks and balances and such, than today’s Russia. The church wasn’t a branch of the ruling group. The courts judged differently and tried to be open and humane. Manual control of everything happening from the center wasn’t a thing. And when that interfered with what the center wanted, the center wouldn’t try to utterly destroy everyone involved. When people read today various politically-loaded texts written by Russian noblemen from late XIX century, they sometimes do the mistake of equating state officials and thieves from that time with state officials and thieves from now. Both are groups of humans, but if a state official from that time did a small fraction of what state officials of today do every day, they’d lose any status. Even in manners it was impolite and undignified for a nobleman to look down at another person, no matter the rank. The opposite, actually, it was polite to look directly in the eyes on the same level.
Obviously these were all real people and power corrupts, but the gap is still too big for any bridges to exist.
This problem is not that old, it’s something from the late 20s. It’s the house that Stalin built.
Russia between 1905 and 1914 was free enough, and Russia for a couple decades before 1905 was much better in terms of freedom
I don’t think that’s true.
During the nearly 200 years of the Russian Empire, the people were ruled by an emperor with essentially absolute power. This was reduced somewhat with the introduction of the Duma, but Nicholas II still retained absolute power.
Most people couldn’t read, and there was a ton of censorship for those that could. Serfdom wasn’t abolished until the 1860s and most people still largely lived on farms through the end of the 1800s. The abolition of serfdom created a land-owning peasant class (kulaks), and that land was stripped from them by Stalin. So there was a period of 50-60 years where a substantial portion (but still <20%) owned land, and even fewer could read amd write.
In order to actually exercise rights, you need to know what they are and gave the means to communicate outside your local circle.
This problem is not that old, it’s something from the late 20s. It’s the house that Stalin built.
It’s much older. But things started getting better in the late 1800s and early 1900s until Stalin reversed everything.
Going back to pre-Stalin government (say, Duma under Nicholas II) might actually be worse than the current status quo.
I specifically said between 1905 and 1914, as in between the first revolution and wartime laws. Most of the 200 years Russia was basically a slaver society, but not as different in that from, say, Austria, as stereotypes might suggest.
Most people couldn’t read, and there was a ton of censorship for those that could.
Less than Soviet censorship. Imperial censorship was reactive, something published could be forbidden after it was published. Soviet censorship was proactive, nothing could be published without being vetted by censors.
Serfdom wasn’t abolished until the 1860s and most people still largely lived on farms through the end of the 1800s.
A country being mostly agrarian doesn’t by itself say much about freedom.
The abolition of serfdom created a land-owning peasant class (kulaks),
That’s Stalinist mythology. In fact there was a more US south-like dynamic, with plenty of poor farm workers from liberated serfs and farm owners hiring them, mostly nobility, but also, yes, more well-off farmers.
and that land was stripped from them by Stalin.
Land was stripped from everyone having some land. People could be punished for growing something to eat on a small space like suburb lawn in an American movie.
So there was a period of 50-60 years where a substantial portion (but still <20%) owned land, and even fewer could read amd write.
If you mention “kulaks”, then people classified as that in Stalin’s times formed a much bigger proportion of population.
Going back to pre-Stalin government (say, Duma under Nicholas II) might actually be worse than the current status quo.
No, you don’t realize the difference. A working absolutism with working democratic mechanisms, even if subordinate to absolutism, is better than a facade for a bunch of thieves Russia has now.
A country being mostly agrarian doesn’t by itself say much about freedom.
Sure. I guess my point is that ending serfdom didn’t seem to change much about where people lived, implying that people likely still did the same things as under the old system.
This article looks at literacy, and it looks like literacy was ~21% in 1897 (<5% before the end of serfdom), and it doubled over the next 20 years. 40% is a huge increase, but still atrociously low. Literacy is pretty important to other freedoms, so if the majority still wasn’t literate at the peak, that doesn’t sound promising when comparing rights to today. Maybe they were on a better trajectory, idk.
I haven’t studied it extensively, so I could be very mistaken, but it seems like a case of rose colored glasses.
I guess I struggle to see pre-socialist Russia as better than modern Russia, unless we’re merely looking at trajectory.
They were. Russia between 1905 and 1914 was developing faster than at any point under Bolsheviks.
I haven’t studied it extensively, so I could be very mistaken, but it seems like a case of rose colored glasses.
Not entirely, one can call NEP sort of a continuation of those few years.
I guess I struggle to see pre-socialist Russia as better than modern Russia, unless we’re merely looking at trajectory.
In quality, not in quantity. Most people were illiterate and rural, but those who were literate had better quality of that literacy, so to say. Among those capable of touching power it was more decentralized, however strange that would seem. Quality of those people was better too, it wasn’t an organized mafia group. They had professors in the parliament and they didn’t have thieves there.
It’s different, Russia has basically a not very old hereditary elite, families of former communists willing to believe they are some kind of smart mafia, while in fact they are thieves. They have a really sensitive collective ego, and are desperately trying to prove they are worth some respect, at least in the form of fear. They are not real fascists, that elite, they are just mimicking fascists to try to get some of that respect, because fascists seem respected, “real”, for them.
It’s the good old inferiority complex of the Soviet elite, same reason why Baltic countries were made some sort of nice cleaned up version of USSR for westerners, or why there existed that parallel infrastructure of comfortable existence for foreign communists living in the USSR, or why that elite was measuring their status by ability to get something from abroad. They always felt that their own thing is not real.
It maybe goes to the very root, where actual Bolsheviks around year 1917 were mostly Germanophiles, and their ideal state was some idealized communist version of the German Empire, scaled for the planet. Their intention was to only start the revolution in Russia, bring it to Germany and let it develop somehow.
Sorry for many words.
I mean, that’s one of the traits of fascism by Eco, but in his list it wasn’t as capitalized.
That’s fascist though.
Communism doesn’t require spreading, and once you put people in charge to spread any ideology at the expense of the people, you’re fascist, since fascism is generally putting the needs of the “state” (however you define that) above the needs of the people. If you look at the rhetoric coming from Russia about the war in Ukraine, that’s pretty much exactly what we see: we need to do this for the benefit of Russia (not Russians). They’re appealing to a national identity, not any sense of pragmatic benefits for the people.
The same is largely true for the USSR. At the start it may have been a worker revolution, but it quickly devolved into a “sacrifice for the good of the nation” type situation. After it fell, the elite took the place of the state and largely continued with that same mantle. It’s always been about doing what’s best for Russia, not what’s best for Russians. If it was about what’s best for Russians, they probably would’ve joined NATO and maybe the EU, because so much of their trade is with Europe. But that would destroy the chance for Russia to stay relevant as a world superpower.
We have the same type of problem here in the US. I would say we’re probably not quite as far down that path as Russia because we have a strong-enough economy to actually support our imperialist endeavors (so it’s less of a hit to the average person), but there’s still the focus on the needs of the nation instead of the needs of the people:
That’s completely backwards. We should be asking what value the government is providing for us, and ideally strip away everything else. Is bombing Houthis in Yemen helping us? How? What about supporting Israel’s war in Gaza? Why should I be sacrificing myself for a country that does things I disagree with?
That whole “sacrifice for the good of the nation” is absolutely stupid. Sacrifice because it makes you and those you love better off in the long run. If you’re attacked by an oppressive regime, fighting against the regime is better than allowing them to subjugate you. That’s not “sacrificing for your country,” that’s sacrificing to prevent an even worse situation.
Same. I can also get a bit wordy.
It was a common idea that socialism in just one country is not sustainable. The forces threatened by it will destroy it. It was also a common idea that if we unite people in classes and if planned economy is supposed to be more fair and bureaucracy more fair that self-ownership and centralized democracy more fair than decentralized, then group’s majority can be assumed to be the group. And that it’s needed to first conquer the world and then build communism. USSR was supposed to be a conventional, not communist, state, aimed at conquering the world and then building communism.
It was “for the good of the future” usually, if you look at something like Pavel Kogan’s poetry. And again, that kind of marxists thought even before USSR that the collective is the person. That evolution is incrementing levels. From a person to a collective, from a collective to a centralized nation, from that to a centralized world. From that to space travel and many worlds. That’s why, in their opinion, their ideology was progressive.
The way it was presented as humanist was that it will be more efficient, production-wise, and thus will make everyone happier through having nice things. That’s where the Soviet and ex-Soviet envy and pride in education\spirituality comes from, first communist ideology promised that we’ll drop all morality and and jump to future, and for that we’ll live better and it won’t matter who says what, and then it turned out that they didn’t start living better. Thus those attempts to present Soviet communist ideology as more moral, while it was completely materialist and demonstratively nihilist, didn’t touch upon good and evil at all, only factories and centralized organization allowing bigger efficiency (didn’t work). An inversion.
Like some misguided idea of Azimov’s Empire.
No chance for Russia to join the EU without cleansing out that elite. Nobody wants to let in such a big bunch of thieves with ability to make their own rules. Of course, they’ve already let in some with the Baltic states, and they (the EU bureaucrats dreaming of similar power) really like that bunch, but fortunately people like Kaja Kallas and UvdL don’t make all the weather yet.
NATO even less likely, NATO’s goal is maintaining world dominance of its existing members.
No it wouldn’t. It would make its resources, including human resources, use so much more efficient that it would quadruple in weight probably.
It depends. There might be a situation where a similar own bunch of thieves beholds with glee how their competition in their own society vanishes on the frontlines. Then after some time that bunch makes all the deals good for them and not for you.
No, individualism is always better. You are the person you know best, and the meaningful good deeds you can do are all near yourself and in your own context.
Sure, and it was always an excuse to snap up power. Socialism works even in one company, so why wouldn’t it work in one nation? You can still have competitive markets between countries with different economic systems, the USSR just chose to go down the path of control instead of the path of competition.
Yeah, they eventually Stalin got his way and switched to the “socialism in one country” strategy, but that didn’t really mean much IMO since the USSR was still quite aggressive in pushing other countries to join the revolution.
Absolutely. But if the Russian elites really wanted what’s best for Russians, they would’ve stepped down and improved ties with Europe.
Idk, if they join NATO, they wouldn’t have nearly the excuse to retain a large military and have top-down control since they’re largely protected militarily. I don’t think Russia really knows how to embrace freedom, since they’ve had authoritarianism for pretty much forever, from the Tsars to the USSR to Putin. If they did embrace freedom, then yeah, maybe they’d dramatically increase their economic power and become a formidable force given their vast amount of natural resources. I just don’t see that happening.
Not that large really, it has large budgets, mostly embezzled, but I’m not sure even now one can call Russia more militarized than something like Israel or Turkey or USA. All those conscripts doing their service mostly contribute to numbers and someone’s ego and criminal power (they are usable to suppress riots or do manual labor, if something), not defense. Ukraine, a pretty corrupt country itself, is doing well enough against that military.
Russia’s military is mediocre, and for its size and economic power just miserable. Certainly those in Kremlin wouldn’t even laugh at this, because for their goals and intentions it’s exactly as it should be.
Top-down control is not a matter of excuses, it’s a matter of those having it deciding what matters.
And to be honest, NATO doesn’t seem to be reliable enough in today’s world, alliances and agreements are used as toilet paper every day, sometimes guaranteed or signed by pretty important parties. So nah, it would have plenty of excuses.
That’s not entirely true, Russia between 1905 and 1914 was free enough, and Russia for a couple decades before 1905 was much better in terms of freedom, checks and balances and such, than today’s Russia. The church wasn’t a branch of the ruling group. The courts judged differently and tried to be open and humane. Manual control of everything happening from the center wasn’t a thing. And when that interfered with what the center wanted, the center wouldn’t try to utterly destroy everyone involved. When people read today various politically-loaded texts written by Russian noblemen from late XIX century, they sometimes do the mistake of equating state officials and thieves from that time with state officials and thieves from now. Both are groups of humans, but if a state official from that time did a small fraction of what state officials of today do every day, they’d lose any status. Even in manners it was impolite and undignified for a nobleman to look down at another person, no matter the rank. The opposite, actually, it was polite to look directly in the eyes on the same level.
Obviously these were all real people and power corrupts, but the gap is still too big for any bridges to exist.
This problem is not that old, it’s something from the late 20s. It’s the house that Stalin built.
I don’t think that’s true.
During the nearly 200 years of the Russian Empire, the people were ruled by an emperor with essentially absolute power. This was reduced somewhat with the introduction of the Duma, but Nicholas II still retained absolute power.
Most people couldn’t read, and there was a ton of censorship for those that could. Serfdom wasn’t abolished until the 1860s and most people still largely lived on farms through the end of the 1800s. The abolition of serfdom created a land-owning peasant class (kulaks), and that land was stripped from them by Stalin. So there was a period of 50-60 years where a substantial portion (but still <20%) owned land, and even fewer could read amd write.
In order to actually exercise rights, you need to know what they are and gave the means to communicate outside your local circle.
It’s much older. But things started getting better in the late 1800s and early 1900s until Stalin reversed everything.
Going back to pre-Stalin government (say, Duma under Nicholas II) might actually be worse than the current status quo.
I specifically said between 1905 and 1914, as in between the first revolution and wartime laws. Most of the 200 years Russia was basically a slaver society, but not as different in that from, say, Austria, as stereotypes might suggest.
Less than Soviet censorship. Imperial censorship was reactive, something published could be forbidden after it was published. Soviet censorship was proactive, nothing could be published without being vetted by censors.
A country being mostly agrarian doesn’t by itself say much about freedom.
That’s Stalinist mythology. In fact there was a more US south-like dynamic, with plenty of poor farm workers from liberated serfs and farm owners hiring them, mostly nobility, but also, yes, more well-off farmers.
Land was stripped from everyone having some land. People could be punished for growing something to eat on a small space like suburb lawn in an American movie.
If you mention “kulaks”, then people classified as that in Stalin’s times formed a much bigger proportion of population.
No, you don’t realize the difference. A working absolutism with working democratic mechanisms, even if subordinate to absolutism, is better than a facade for a bunch of thieves Russia has now.
In any case one can’t just go back to it.
Sure. I guess my point is that ending serfdom didn’t seem to change much about where people lived, implying that people likely still did the same things as under the old system.
This article looks at literacy, and it looks like literacy was ~21% in 1897 (<5% before the end of serfdom), and it doubled over the next 20 years. 40% is a huge increase, but still atrociously low. Literacy is pretty important to other freedoms, so if the majority still wasn’t literate at the peak, that doesn’t sound promising when comparing rights to today. Maybe they were on a better trajectory, idk.
I haven’t studied it extensively, so I could be very mistaken, but it seems like a case of rose colored glasses.
I guess I struggle to see pre-socialist Russia as better than modern Russia, unless we’re merely looking at trajectory.
They were. Russia between 1905 and 1914 was developing faster than at any point under Bolsheviks.
Not entirely, one can call NEP sort of a continuation of those few years.
In quality, not in quantity. Most people were illiterate and rural, but those who were literate had better quality of that literacy, so to say. Among those capable of touching power it was more decentralized, however strange that would seem. Quality of those people was better too, it wasn’t an organized mafia group. They had professors in the parliament and they didn’t have thieves there.