The illiberalism of anti-Putinism
During my back-and-forth with Barrett Brown, he asked to see evidence of my assertion that a majority of the opposition to Vladimir Putin was not cuddly liberal democrats yearning to breathe free, but people with profoundly illiberal political views, i.e. communists, nationalists, and various kinds of nutty fascists/reactionaries. I didn’t do a particularly great job of providing evidence, partially because there is always going to be a great deal of subjectivity in analyzing a political movement’s “true” views, and partially because,to be perfectly honest and in the interests of full disclosure, I have a day job that takes up most of my time; writing this blog, while a great deal of fun and something I take seriously, is thus something of a diversion. Well, there was apparently a protest against Putin the other day in Arkhangelsk and the lede of the Reuters article noted the following (emphasis added):
About 4,000 protesters braved biting cold to hold an unauthorized rally at a huge Lenin monument in Arkhangelsk’s main square, chanting: “Down with this useless state power” and “Down with United Russia.”
“We do not believe the authorities” and “We demand a pay rise,” read some of the posters. Red hammer-and-sickle Communist Party flags dominated the scene.
Now, is this simply one protest among many? Yes. Does this “evidence” incontrovertibly prove that my assertion about the political views of anti-Putin protesters was right? No. But the general picture painted in this story closely corresponds to that which I have been able to discern in virtually every wire story, photograph, and video of the recent spate of protest marches. It’s true that a few “Solidarity” members show up, make a beeline for the Western reporters (if there are any), make a lot of noise and then, when the OMON show up, make a big show of getting arrested. However, in the background, most of the people actually doing the protesting are really old, really pissed off, and really, really, shouldn’t be mistaken for liberals. Don’t just believe my words, when you look at the footage of the recent protest marches scan the crowd and see how many people are holding big red hammer and sickle flecked flags, photos of Stalin, or placards demanding bigger salaries, bigger pensions, bigger subsidies, and, generally, a much more active and invasive role for the state.
As many astute writers have noted, American/British journalists inevitably sympathize with whatever group speaks English the best. The young and well-educated people who comprise much of “Solidarity” and the liberal parts of the opposition are almost all passable English speakers, and they thus present a much more attractive face for anti-Putin sentiment than the grizzled old babushki holding posters with Lenin quotations and incoherently blabbering on about how everything was better under communism. I don’t think this means that Western journalists are nefarious or evil (elderly Russians can be really nasty and hard to talk to!), merely to say that we should always question the alleged prominence of beautiful, sophisticated, Westernized, and English-speaking youth whenever these protest marches are discussed. Statistically speaking, the median anti-Putin protester is almost certainly more likely to be a wrinkled old war veteran than a fresh faced university graduate who want Russia to become America.
As for my suggestion that the alliance between charlatans like Garry Kasparov and outright fascists like Eduard Limonov “wouldn’t last 30 seconds” if Vladimir Putin was, by some miracle, thrown out of power, the very same Reuters article said:
A group of men dressed in black manhandled supporters of the liberal opposition movement Solidarity as they tried to unfold their posters and orange flags. Policemen did not interfere. And communist members at the rally refused to give Solidarity members the floor.
“We will not allow this orange plague here in the north,” local Communist Party chief Alexei Novikov told the rally.
This little scenario nicely captures why I think it is incredibly counterproductive to label people as “pro” this or “anti” that. Alexei Novikov is, at least at this moment in time, profoundly “anti Putin:” the man helped organize a sizable opposition rally explicitly directed against the current political leadership! If you set out tomorrow to make a short list of “anti-Putin” activists in Russia, you’d have to put Novikov on it simply because of his success in delivering a respectable turnout in Arkhangelsk in March (no mean feat, that). But, as I think is quite clear from what I’ve quoted, Alexei Novikov is also a pretty nasty piece of work. If you think that putting people like him in power would make Russia any more democratic, liberal, or free than it is today…well, then you’re the kind of person who would believe we’re soon going to find WMD in Iraq, that the recently passed health care bill is a “nationalization” of the industry, or that the Dallas cowboys are anything other than a bunch of over-hyped choke artists. In short, if you’re willing to believe that, by virtue of opposing Putin, Russian communists aren’t extremely nasty and scary people, you’re the sort of person who will believe anything.
To the extent that I think Putin’s influence on Russia over the past decade just barely sneaks on to the positive side of the ledger, it is because, at the present time, the only other realistic alternative is rule by people like Alexei Novikov. I don’t think that upon coming to power the KPRF would unleash a Stalin-like bloodbath, one of the few, and perhaps only, positive side effects of Stalinism was that it seems to have inculcated in the Russian elite a profound disillusionment with mass violence as an acceptable practice in politics,* but if you think that administrative interference in business, paternalism, corruption, and official lawlessness are a problem now, well you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Many people seem to think that just because Putin arrested Khordorkhovsky, or is generally mean to the “liberals,” that he hates capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Putin loves capitalism, he just doesn’t like political rivals. If a Russian businessman is willing to play by the rules, there are virtually no limits on his ability to get rich and he will be allowed, even encouraged, to travel freely, expand his business internationally, list his company’s stock on an exchange in London or Hong Kong, educate his children in an exclusive boarding school, and generally gain full membership in that most exclusive and satisfying of clubs the transnational business elite (of course if you break the rules set by Putin, all bets are off). Without glorifying such a system too much, in the long term I expect that Russian capitalism, nasty, chaotic, and corrupt as it is, will prove to be an impetus to very, OK more likely extremely, gradual political liberalization. It is to Putin’s credit that, even as he set about rectifying some of the most grotesque side-effects of the 1990’s collapse, he never undid the liberalizing economic reforms that accompanied it. As a result, market forces in Russia today are probably stronger than they have ever been. I don’t think autocratic capitalism is a particularly pleasant or attractive model, but there are myriad examples of countries transitioning away from it towards democracy and such a scenario is possible, if not especially likely, for Russia some years down the road.
If a responsible (i.e. genuinely pro-market and pro-democracy) opposition emerges in Russia, I’ll be one of the very first to support it. However, a more democratic, transparent, and dynamic Russia is not going to emerge through rule by the communists, and Russian liberals have shown no success whatsoever in expanding beyond their traditional 10-15% of society primarily because they can never succeed in hiding their profound contempt for their fellow countrymen for more than 5 minutes at a time. What Russia needs is what it hasn’t had for an eternity: a long period of market-driven growth in an environment free of social strife and external conflict. Will Putin and his system deliver this? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it seems to me that, at the moment, they’re the only ones who can mount a remotely plausible case that they can: the communists obviously wouldn’t support a market system, and as the 1990’s showed, due the profound unpopularity of most of their views, the liberals can’t rule without massive social unrest.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] See the article here: The illiberalism of anti-Putinism – Mark Adomanis – On Russia … [...]
Many people seem to think that just because Putin arrested Khordorkhovsky, or is generally mean to the “liberals,” that he hates capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Putin loves capitalism, he just doesn’t like political rivals.
As I’m now fond of saying, Putin et al are liberals. All one has to do is familiarize themselves with the Russian liberal tradition, which ranges from others who didn’t like political rivals like Stolypin to people like Miliukov who was more politically tolerant and more akin to American liberalism (though feared the masses with more passion).
If Barret Brown wants a reading list on the history of Russian liberalism, I can provide him one. He might be surprised that it didn’t begin with Solidarity or with criminals like Khodorkovsky, who in my view are merely opportunists.
One should also point out that the Russian government has been surprisingly responsive to these protests which are mostly about the hike in ultities. Medvedev has appointed a point man in Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozakov to find out who is responsible for the hikes and fire those responsible (now we wait and see). Which isn’t the federal government, btw. Utilities have been decentralized to municipal administrations and companies. See this article in Russian Newsweek: http://www.runewsweek.ru/country/33174/
Arkhangelsk is a good example here of who municipal administrations have been favoring business. Last year, residents were paying 8 rubles per cubic meter of water and businesses 46. Now residents are paying 14 and business 34. Given the unabashed free market ideology of Solidarity, my guess is that they are merely jumping on the anger bandwagon.
The bigger meaning here is that the protests are against the very liberalism that the Medvedev/Putin government has instituted!
Sean,
Good points though, being far more to the right on the economic spectrum than you are, I would have some reservations about labelling Putin and Medvedev as pure “liberals.” Now, are they more economically liberal than not? Sure. But some of their programs (increased social spending for one, as well as the much touted pro-natal benefits) had people like Boris Nemtsov ripping their hair out.
Now, of course it’s true that many Russian liberals aren’t being totally sincere when they denounce Putvedev, but given how lunatic some of them are in their market Bolshevism I don’t think it’s purely an act. For someone like Iulyia Latinya, anything but a tea-partier’s paradise equals Stalinist despotism. From that (insane) perspective Putin and Medvedev really do appear to be heavy-handed statists.
In response to another comment. See in context »This, spot on:
“Russian liberals have shown no success whatsoever in expanding beyond their traditional 10-15% of society primarily because they can never succeed in hiding their profound contempt for their fellow countrymen for more than 5 minutes at a time.”
Mark, I generally enjoy reading your posts, but I would suggest you stop slandering people you know nothing about. stop calling them nasty names. You seem disrespectful and It does you no credit.
“Russian communists aren’t extremely nasty and scary people”
I mostly agree with the rest and as, you have correctly noted most Russians want nothing to do with the so called pro-west liberals, and for a good reason.
I have to 100% agree with slava here. I was nodding to most of the piece up till that point, which strikes one as extremely judgmental and illiberal on your part.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Read the rest here: The illiberalism of anti-Putinism – Mark Adomanis – On Russia … [...]
I’m gonna have to come to Mark’s defense here, folks. It’s not incumbent upon him to stop calling people what they are, if they really as so. Legitimate complaints could be either that he generalizes unfairly from a few individuals to a whole group; or that he needs to produce more evidence for his accusations. (Mind you, I am not accusing you of either, Mark).
But if those guys are nasty and scary, he is entirely within his rights to call them so. You misunderstand the term ‘judgmental’ if he thinks he’s not entitled to use it about them. He’s not under any obligation to change his vocabulary; rather, they need to change their outlook on things.
It’s not judgmental or unfair to call a spade, a spade. It’s only judgmental to call it so before you’ve looked at it carefully; it could be a rake, for all we know. But if you’ve examined it carefully and determined it to be a spade, you’re not being illiberal in calling it so. No liberal is required to spare the feelings of the enemies of liberalism.
As a not irrelevant aside, I’m familiar with some Commie retreads and nostalgics from my own home land, across the Black Sea. I know that those guys are nasty, scary pieces of work. I’d be greatly surprised if their Russian counterparts were much different.
Everyone,
I’m going to be perfectly honest here. There are many things I worry about, sometimes on a daily basis, such as: are we alone in the universe? What is the ultimate meaning of life? Will the Eagles trade Donovan McNabb? One of the things that I most certainly do not worry about is “have I been too mean to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.”
If you expect me to join in defending people who are the direct institutional heirs to the most murderous political party in history, sorry. My contrarianism regarding Russia has bounds. The Communists were and are a filthy pack of mendacious, and deeply incompetant, thieves. I fail to see how any rational case can be constructed for treating them with anything but the greatest degree of contempt.
Give’em hell, cowboy.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t believe anyone is asking you to “defend” Russian communists, just pointing out that it might be better to refrain from the same pro-Putin/anti-Putin binary that you correctly criticize in most Western Russia-watchers (not to mention from which you’ve been attacked by Barrett Brown, unfairly in your view). The addition of moral judgments, which are cultural-specific social constructs, only tends to cloud the issues.
Many Russian communists are people who’ve been ****ed over big-time by the market reforms, like all people they need someone to blame and something to believe in, and I fail to see how their admittedly rose-tinged nostalgia for the past can be considered contemptible.
“Most murderous” is a very loaded term, and IMO inaccurate. First, the CPSU de-linked itself from Stalinism in 1956 (under whom it suffered more so than the “normal” population). Second, the Nazis were, in every sense, far more murderous than Stalinism in its deepest moments of paranoia and over-reaction.
Now, it’s your blog, and I certainly don’t presume to tell you how your should write it. I just have a deep aversion to this kind of moralistic posturing and labeling of vast swathes of the population just for daring to hold different viewpoints, like the people who label Muslims as being violent freedom-haters (which is certainly not to claim that I’m innocent of this either – we are all complicit). It is the same kind of “rational” Ours/Other mental division of the world from which the bulk of the world’s violence has ever sprung from.
In response to another comment. See in context »Anatoly,
Just to be clear, I don’t think that Russia should outlaw the communists or place them under some sort of administrative sanction (indeed that would probably only make them more popular as they would become “martyrs”). However I don’t think it’s being out of line to call Russian communists “really nasty and scary people.” They are. Russian communists have committed any number of horrific crimes this century and, contrary to your interpretation of the secret speech, most Russian communists have never really disavowed Stalin or Stalinism, but merely it’s obviously indefensible descent into madness in 1937-8.
In response to another comment. See in context »And as for your suggestion that the Nazis were “far more murderous” I think you’re being far too charitable to the Soviets. Ultimately I think the numbers game (as played in books like the “Black book of Communism”) is all a bit pointless, but I hardly think it’s a radical position to suggest that both the Nazis and the Soviets were horrific murderers and forces of deep historical malevolence.
As for the social identity of communists, you’re right that they are primarily the people who were ****ed over big time by market reforms. But you know what? Too bad for them. Life is hard, and then you die. Russians got a really bum deal, but if a person looks at the country’s 20th century history and comes to the considered conclusion that the answer is “more communism, please!” they are literally too stupid for words.
So, to be clear, Russian communists are free to believe whatever they want: they can think that Stalin was a great leader, that the Soviet economy was powerful and efficient, and that it was only the nefariousness of the Americans that brought their country to beggary and ruin. However, I also think I should be equally free to point out these peoples’ idiocy and mendacity. That, after all, is what liberalism is all about, isn’t it, a free exchange of opinions?
“idiocy and mendacity”
mendacity (I had to look that up)
- given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mendacious
You see the problem with some “liberals” is the presumption of themselves as the carriers of truth. Very convenient position and allows one to moralize about those other ignoramuses, point fingers, excuse own actions. Very similar to Kasparov and the “solidarity” gang.
In response to another comment. See in context »To address a few of your points…
In response to another comment. See in context »1) Re-”I also think I should be equally free to point out these peoples’ idiocy and mendacity”. I quite emphatically agreed with you. Your blog is your fiefdom, you are its absolute dictator, but unlike in RL, people are free to go to another dictator’s fiefdom.
2) …”20th century history and comes to the considered conclusion that the answer is “more communism, please!” they are literally too stupid for words.” For many of those people, their life experiences indicate that the “Communism” – a misnomer, it would more accurately be called militarized socialism – of the 1970’s-80’s was superior to the 1990’s, and for some to the 2000’s too. It is possible to sympathize with these views, while recognizing that going back to the old system now is pointless, – yes, I’ve even argued against it with some elderly Communists – but thinking of them as idiots (let alone nasty or mendacious) for holding on to views formed by life experience strikes me as amazingly arrogant.
IMO, what the KPRF really needs is an influx of new ideas, new leaders, to make itself appealing to younger people, so that it can transform itself into a relevant, future-orientated (instead of clinging to the past) political force for economic justice, social progress, environmentalism, etc, in Russia.
3) Stalin *was* a “great leader” (it is quite possible to be “great” and a tyrant and a savior all at the same time – in fact, most historical “greats” seem to fit this bill; the farther back in history, the fewer passions they tend to arouse). In my experience, the main reason why 20-50% of Russians (it depends on how the question is put) admit to having positive views of Stalin is because of their reaction against the one-sided smearing of his rule in the “liberal” pedagogy and media of the 1990’s. I happen to think recognizing Stalin’s positive aspects is not “Stalinist”, as long as it is not accompanied by white-washing the negatives. For the record, I’ve gotten flak from both the “you’re a filthy Stalinist and have you stopped beating your wife lately?” and the real-Stalinist-fanatic extremes.
Well, those are my opinions for the day. Some might (and do) despise me for holding them, I couldn’t care less. People rarely choose the beliefs they hold, the beliefs choose them.
Mark. You seem to displaying the same kind of ignorant disregard for people with different believes that you correctly condemn in your post.
“institutional heirs to the most murderous political party in history”
“The Communists were and are a filthy pack of mendacious, and deeply incompetant, thieves”
With that kind nasty attitude towards people that you have never met, that have done you no harm (or did they steal something from you?) you remind me of the very same “liberals” who have no chance in Russia.
And as for most murderous party you may want look closer to home (by party I mean the demo-republican corporate party that runs things in US).
In response to another comment. See in context »Slava,
I have a bit of a soft spot for the Russki narod broadly understood; their language, their culture, their literature, and their music. I don’t think you can find a single person in all of history who did more than Stalin to deform, corrupt, and otherwise weaken the Russian people (which are, of course, distinct from their state).
In response to another comment. See in context »This, ultimately, is why I find the communists so contemptible: their utter indifference to human life and the unconscionable way they treated the Russian people. The main reason I don’t find Putin to be particularly worrisome or evil is the clear improvement in Russians’ standard of living and the clearly larger priority the state is putting on health, welfare, and education. I can understand why Russians, by virtue of nostalgia or emotionalism, might look fondly on the Brezhnev years, but I’d like to think they can be a bit more rational and clear headed about such vital matters.
What the heck is your problem with the Dallas Cowboys? This is at least the second time you’ve made your hatred known. You should at least try to be more objective, but since you’re probably from Philly I suppose there’s no hope for you (or your team this year). Talk about over-hyped choke artists! I think Webster’s definition would include a picture of Donovan McNabb.
In any event, we here in Texas look forward to routing both the Skins and the Eagles this year in Jerry World. You’re not invited.
Hi Mark,
I follow your blog and must say that you do a great job. It is daunting task bringing some sanity in Russian coverage.
Just some notes about communist. If you look at the phenomena from the perspective of current US teachings you will not understand the driving forces which are still in place in Russia and elsewhere. If you will have time and desire try to look at this period from different prospective. US books are full of mythos and bashing.
Secondly the idea is well and alive but is taking different forms. For example E.F. Schumacher “Small is beautiful” is the idea of communism in disguise.
What I want to say. If you dismiss downright the idea you will be puzzled all the time with Russian reaction to many things. Right now the Russian mentality is a crazy mixture of socialistic ideas and unabridged capitalism; however the big part of society still longs for good old time.
And how much Kremlin Mafia pays you for brainwashing in Putin’s style? Your stupid apologetic articles are written in the best traditions of communist propaganda. Putin and his corrupted political party are just a gang of plunderers and criminals, that means you are an accomplice.
Ahh, the Russian liberals break out the big guns!
In response to another comment. See in context »Look, you have nothing better to do than accuse me of being a Kremlin agent? Really? Of all the things in the world, the best use of your time was writing that comment? Is there anything that I could possibly say or do that would make you appear more vapid and idiotic?
Caught in the crossfire between Communyaks and liberasts… the martyrdom of Mark.
In response to another comment. See in context »You are right, certainly writing comments on your works is not he best use of my time, though it was professional journalist interest, which kind of newspaper publishes your articles ans what sort of person you are. Are all people with other ideas and better information on what is going on Russia idiotic in your opinion?
In response to another comment. See in context »Do you know that in modern Russia is more orphans than after the WW2? Do you know that teachers and doctors have salary hardly on the minimal official standard of living or below it? No, it’s not living standard, it’s level of biological surviving, while the Putin’s Mafia is preoccupied with former state’s property repartition? Do you know that different Russians newspapers write every day about crimes of militia? Do you know that corruption is just a way of life in Putin’s Russia? How dare you write in injurious style about opponents of this criminal regime?
blah blah blah blah blah.
As for your “argument” about Russian doctors having awful salaries that has been true for at least the past 50 years. That would be some trick if Putin was able to create such a serious social problem while he was still an infant. The National Priority Project: Health (while inadequate in many ways) was the first serious effort on the part of the authorities to address the low salaries of doctors.
As for convincing a majority of Russians they live under a “criminal regime,” good luck with that.
In response to another comment. See in context »You should talk to normal doctor instead repeating brainwashing blah blah blah.
In response to another comment. See in context »I like your way of mixing wrong statements with real details. let them argue! The key words in this remark relate both to Putin’s reforms and your articles – “while inadequate in many ways”.
This is a great blog. However…
Your characterization of the views of the KPRF electorate is way off and shows that you haven’t read much (or perhaps any
) of the writings of KPRF intellectuals but are rather engaging with a KPRF-of-the-mind. They are typically social democrats, not supporters of pure central planning; the figure that to them embodies what was good about the USSR is not Stalin, but Brezhnev; and they do not blame the US for the fall of the USSR. (The attempt to reduce the USSR to the Stalin period is really annoying.)
Some people do believe these things I’m sure, but having lived in Russia 10 years and having spoken with many KPRF supporters and read heaps of their literature, I have yet to meet or read one.
Another good article Mark. It’s bad that most of US Media are ignorant dicks that tells a complete crap about Russia, and you are nice example of that there is a sane people out there in US who does not believe that crap.
There is a some interesting website that makes translations of articles about Russia from western media and blogs – http://inosmi.ru/ Your articles are always got a lot of positive comments from the russian readers.
Go on Mark – you are doing a great job
P.S. so called “liberalists” atempt to make their point in Russia (Limiov, Kasyanov, Gasparov) are usually vied by common russian floks as some kind of special olymcis – no matter what they (liberalists) do – they are still retarded
So first (without any proof whatsoever) you accuse me of being a Kremlin agent. Then (also without any proof whatsoever) you suggest that, because of Vladimir Putin’s criminality, doctors in Russia are doing worse then they used to. What’s next, a claim that Putin is the force behind Al-Qaeda? Or perhaps that he killed the dinosaurs?
While in grad shool, I studied Russian healthcare. I wrote a thesis about it, and lived and breathed the stuff every day for 9 months. I did my best to be accurate: I had no financial or any other sort of stake in “proving” one side or the other. Every independent source of data I could find (the WHO, the EBRD, Yegor Gaidar’s Institute for the Economy in Transition, and other American/British academic researchers) suggested that, starting in the mid 2000’s, there was a significant improvement in most doctors’ wages, largely driven by the Russian government’s national priority project health but also by a substantial increase in real spending of roughly 15% a year.
Now it is certainly possible all of these organization I listed, and many others, are secretly in cahoots with the Kremlin and are engaged in a deliberate and massive falsification of data. It is also possible that I am an FSB plant. But it is dependent on you, the accuser, to provide some minimal proof for such allegations, NOT on the targets of such insane charges to “prove” their inaccuracy.
So I challenge you, maksimilian, to provide proof for the following charges:
1) that I am a Russian spy
2) that doctors wages in Russia have decreased during Putin and Medvedev’s terms in office
Again demagogy in style of Soviet propaganda! Where did you learn it so well? You offer me to provide proof for designedly wrong statements. 1) You are certainly not Russian spy, but criminal’s apologet and, possibly, agent.
2)Doctors wages increased threefold, prices increased fourfold.
Read this, it’s more adequate:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/neosoviet_russia_and_america.html
I asked you to provide evidence for your charges. You instead provided:
1) a statement (with no proof) that I am “possibly [an] agent”
2) a statement (with no proof) that “doctors’ wages increased threefold, prices increased fourfold”
3) a totally unrelated Kim Zigfeld article.
Nice work.