battle fatigue
December 29, 2015 6:31 AM Subscribe
Know what?
I almost prefer this to the way that we sent our youngest, poorest, and most vulnerable citizens to die in Iraq, treated the two wars that we were fighting as a minor footnote in the news, and then welcomed our soldiers home by denying them the medical care that they were promised.
Russia's portrait of war is ugly, distorted, and inaccurate... but at least it's evidently visible. The extent to which America has glossed over the horrors of war for the past 20 years is absolutely sickening.
posted by schmod at 7:24 AM on December 29, 2015 [47 favorites]
I almost prefer this to the way that we sent our youngest, poorest, and most vulnerable citizens to die in Iraq, treated the two wars that we were fighting as a minor footnote in the news, and then welcomed our soldiers home by denying them the medical care that they were promised.
Russia's portrait of war is ugly, distorted, and inaccurate... but at least it's evidently visible. The extent to which America has glossed over the horrors of war for the past 20 years is absolutely sickening.
posted by schmod at 7:24 AM on December 29, 2015 [47 favorites]
Note: That's sure as hell not an endorsement.
posted by schmod at 7:25 AM on December 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by schmod at 7:25 AM on December 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
Russian culture??? Media had me believing it was a Cold
posted by infini at 7:27 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by infini at 7:27 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
The first Gulf war in the early 90's seemed to saturate everything here in the US. Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm shirts everywhere. The whole exercise seemed to be an attempt to make up for the poor treatment Vietnam vets received in some quarters.
posted by Badgermann at 7:28 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Badgermann at 7:28 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
Previous comments already imply this, but if anybody hasn't clicked through to the article yet, the answer is a lot more interesting than "Uh, the last 400 years or so of Russian history." which is what I figured it was.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:30 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:30 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments deleted -- article is about Russia, let's not immediately start arguing about the US or about whether we should argue about the US.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:41 AM on December 29, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:41 AM on December 29, 2015 [9 favorites]
Of Putin: "He doesn’t want a cult of personality — he’s said as much on numerous occasions."
It seems that part of this article's argument is based on taking Putin's words at face value. That undermines it a bit...
posted by paper chromatographologist at 7:43 AM on December 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
It seems that part of this article's argument is based on taking Putin's words at face value. That undermines it a bit...
posted by paper chromatographologist at 7:43 AM on December 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
I've got a bad feeling about this. A feeling I haven't had since being a kid in the early 70's, when my three most feared things were Bigfoot, killer bees, and nuclear war. I now understand a lot more about the world, and Russia's renewed bellicosity (and nuclear arsenal) give me the willies.
posted by jetsetsc at 7:44 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jetsetsc at 7:44 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
It seems that part of this article's argument is based on taking Putin's words at face value. That undermines it a bit...
Yeah. I don't have a good sense of what's happening in Russia. Russia isn't a place or a culture I remotely have a good model of. That said, taking the article at face value, I get a real whiff of internal inconsistency. I know there's a intended subtlety I'm not reading clearly, but why again isn't this apparent slide into totalitarianism actually totalitarian in character?
posted by brennen at 7:50 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah. I don't have a good sense of what's happening in Russia. Russia isn't a place or a culture I remotely have a good model of. That said, taking the article at face value, I get a real whiff of internal inconsistency. I know there's a intended subtlety I'm not reading clearly, but why again isn't this apparent slide into totalitarianism actually totalitarian in character?
posted by brennen at 7:50 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've got a bad feeling about this. A feeling I haven't had since being a kid in the early 70's, when my three most feared things were Bigfoot, killer bees, and nuclear war. I now understand a lot more about the world, and Russia's renewed bellicosity (and nuclear arsenal) give me the willies.
Eh. Russia wants to be a Regional Power. They've shown no indication otherwise.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:54 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Eh. Russia wants to be a Regional Power. They've shown no indication otherwise.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:54 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nothing is safe from the influence of the influencers.
posted by infini at 7:55 AM on December 29, 2015
posted by infini at 7:55 AM on December 29, 2015
Really, it was about time Eric Burdon and friends got their due over there.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:01 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:01 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
It seems that part of this article's argument is based on taking Putin's words at face value.
Caesar publicly rejected the role of Dictator a couple of times, too.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:02 AM on December 29, 2015 [7 favorites]
Caesar publicly rejected the role of Dictator a couple of times, too.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:02 AM on December 29, 2015 [7 favorites]
> It seems that part of this article's argument is based on taking Putin's words at face value. That undermines it a bit...
Don't be ridiculous. The author knows Russia and Putin a hell of a lot better than you do. Here's the full paragraph:
posted by languagehat at 8:05 AM on December 29, 2015 [29 favorites]
Don't be ridiculous. The author knows Russia and Putin a hell of a lot better than you do. Here's the full paragraph:
Not surprisingly, this year has witnessed the rise of a fashion for t-shirts emblazoned with the image of a uniformed, sunglassed Putin and bearing the caption “The Politest of Men”. They’re sold at airports and major shopping centres. Given Putin’s popularity in Russia, you could get seriously rich selling these souvenirs. No crowds of people throng around them, however. Paradoxically enough, it’s Putin himself we must thank for the lack of demand for such items. He doesn’t want a cult of personality — he’s said as much on numerous occasions. The regime strives to keep even manifestations of emotion on a tight rein. It’s genuinely not a cult of personality, and it’s not a business thing. It’s a ritual used by businesspeople to protect themselves. Which is exactly what motivates the actions of a private souvenir dealer in the small town of Ples on the Volga: a Putin t-shirt is displayed in a prominent spot in his stall, the better to protect it, for a limited time at least, from inspections, rivals and police. This isn’t hysteria, it’s pragmatism. Everyone in Russia understands and complies with the code of loyalty.If our thumbsucking pundits could just understand that one paragraph, let alone the whole article, they'd be spared inflicting a lot of bullshit on us. But of course they don't actually want to understand, they want to sell their words.
posted by languagehat at 8:05 AM on December 29, 2015 [29 favorites]
Similar article from last year, albeit not quite so militarily focused. (Re: clothing, military is kind of a perennial.)
On the geo-political front, the real point of interest is in Siberia, where demographics and natural resources and border lines are making for some unsettling possibilities. See Dominic Ziegler's Black Dragon River for more.
I almost prefer this to the way that we sent our youngest, poorest, and most vulnerable citizens to die in Iraq
The data suggest another picture.
posted by BWA at 8:05 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
On the geo-political front, the real point of interest is in Siberia, where demographics and natural resources and border lines are making for some unsettling possibilities. See Dominic Ziegler's Black Dragon River for more.
I almost prefer this to the way that we sent our youngest, poorest, and most vulnerable citizens to die in Iraq
The data suggest another picture.
posted by BWA at 8:05 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
That complete paragraph is just as damning as the one sentence. Putin says he doesn't want a cult of personality, and yet selling Putin T-shirts is understood to protect a business from inspections, rivals, and police. If Putin genuinely didn't want a cult of personality, he's pretty well-positioned to wave off two of those three things.
posted by Etrigan at 8:16 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 8:16 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
The author knows Russia and Putin a hell of a lot better than you do.
That is certainly true.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 8:17 AM on December 29, 2015
That is certainly true.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 8:17 AM on December 29, 2015
He doesn’t want a cult of personality — he’s said as much on numerous occasions.
I'm actually pretty interested in hearing more about this, because this doesn't match my (admittedly limited) understanding of Putin even a little, and it seems like a fairly unusual power play for a politician to make.
posted by schmod at 8:27 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm actually pretty interested in hearing more about this, because this doesn't match my (admittedly limited) understanding of Putin even a little, and it seems like a fairly unusual power play for a politician to make.
posted by schmod at 8:27 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Another way to read the article is to consider whether the entire country is trolling the rest of us.
posted by infini at 8:43 AM on December 29, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by infini at 8:43 AM on December 29, 2015 [7 favorites]
it seems like a fairly unusual power play for a politician to make
My guess it that he wants to keep the appearance of legitimacy, and not look like some tin pot dictator. Cult of Personality stuff is now a marker of Third World Also-Rans that don't matter. The big boys go understated.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:15 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
My guess it that he wants to keep the appearance of legitimacy, and not look like some tin pot dictator. Cult of Personality stuff is now a marker of Third World Also-Rans that don't matter. The big boys go understated.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:15 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
That complete paragraph is just as damning as the one sentence. Putin says he doesn't want a cult of personality, and yet selling Putin T-shirts is understood to protect a business from inspections, rivals, and police. If Putin genuinely didn't want a cult of personality, he's pretty well-positioned to wave off two of those three things.
Exactly. He may not be hanging giant portraits of himself in every public space, but only because he doesn't need to. Everyone scrambles to do it themselves out of fear -- a fear he has done everything in his power to cultivate.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:16 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
Exactly. He may not be hanging giant portraits of himself in every public space, but only because he doesn't need to. Everyone scrambles to do it themselves out of fear -- a fear he has done everything in his power to cultivate.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:16 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
Of Putin: "He doesn’t want a cult of personality — he’s said as much on numerous occasions."
That's the joke.
posted by Reyturner at 9:22 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's the joke.
posted by Reyturner at 9:22 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
It’s a ritual used by businesspeople to protect themselves. Which is exactly what motivates the actions of a private souvenir dealer in the small town of Ples on the Volga: a Putin t-shirt is displayed in a prominent spot in his stall, the better to protect it, for a limited time at least, from inspections, rivals and police.
This aligns with what my Bulgarian co-worker, who grew up under the Iron Curtain, always says about Putin: "He is mafia."
She also has the impression that young people, at least in her native country, are more susceptible to the lure of Putin as strongman, as they didn't experience the miseries of life under Soviet Communism, and can see only how far they've fallen from their position as a respected and feared world power. And for many of them, Putin's past as KGB is not a negative, but rather an indicator of his strength.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:23 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
This aligns with what my Bulgarian co-worker, who grew up under the Iron Curtain, always says about Putin: "He is mafia."
She also has the impression that young people, at least in her native country, are more susceptible to the lure of Putin as strongman, as they didn't experience the miseries of life under Soviet Communism, and can see only how far they've fallen from their position as a respected and feared world power. And for many of them, Putin's past as KGB is not a negative, but rather an indicator of his strength.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:23 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
Some of the fashion ideas in this article are really interesting, but nevertheless I prefer brightly colored balaclavas, thank you very much.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:56 AM on December 29, 2015
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:56 AM on December 29, 2015
It's odd how much our current James Bond resembles Putin.
I wasn't surprised to find this is a thing when I Googled it, but I wasn't prepared for how much of a thing it is.
I wonder whether Putin allows himself to daydream of a flattering biopic starring the dashing Mr. Craig, or whether the rewards of his power and prestige are too great for that kind of thing to even register with him.
posted by jamjam at 9:58 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wasn't surprised to find this is a thing when I Googled it, but I wasn't prepared for how much of a thing it is.
I wonder whether Putin allows himself to daydream of a flattering biopic starring the dashing Mr. Craig, or whether the rewards of his power and prestige are too great for that kind of thing to even register with him.
posted by jamjam at 9:58 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wasn't surprised to find this is a thing when I Googled it, but I wasn't prepared for how much of a thing it is.
I had the same thought when I Googled "putin on the ritz."
posted by echocollate at 10:23 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
I had the same thought when I Googled "putin on the ritz."
posted by echocollate at 10:23 AM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
"I wonder whether Putin allows himself to daydream of a flattering biopic starring the dashing Mr. Craig..."
I know I do.
posted by Cookiebastard at 10:23 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I know I do.
posted by Cookiebastard at 10:23 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
> She also has the impression that young people, at least in her native country, are more susceptible to the lure of Putin as strongman, as they didn't experience the miseries of life under Soviet Communism, and can see only how far they've fallen from their position as a respected and feared world power. And for many of them, Putin's past as KGB is not a negative, but rather an indicator of his strength.
I wish I had infinite free time to study Russian history, because the impression I get is that it's worthwhile to think of the Russian security apparatus (first the Ohkrana under the Tsar, then the Cheka, then the KGB, then Putin) as having held more or less continual control over the state, despite all of the surface-level ideological shifts that happened over the past 140 years there.
This is based on exactly two pieces of totally meaningless evidence; mostly I'm posting this so that someone who knows what they're talking about can tell me why I'm being reductive.
Piece of not-evidence #1: Before the revolution, the other Bolsheviks apparently had good reason to suspect that Stalin was an Ohkrana agent — though the only stuff I've read about this is stuff related to the 1907 Bolshevik bank robbery.
Piece of not-evidence #2: Putin apparently stands at attention when the State Anthem of the Soviet Union is played. This is not the original Soviet anthem — which is of course the Internationale, a song about fighting for world revolution. Stalin, obviously, had stepped back from the idea of world revolution to the idea of "socialism in one state," and so instituted this new anthem, which was patriotic and nationalist rather than socialist and internationalist, and which was devoted in large part to talking about how keen a guy Stalin was. I'd be stunned if Putin stood for the Internationale; I'm not the slightest bit surprised that he stands for the State Anthem.
Anyway. Sometimes I'm being disingenuous when I say that I know that I don't know what I'm talking about, but in this case I am absolutely not. Russian historiography is damned hard. It's impossible to trust anything Stalinists said about anything, and it's impossible to trust anything Trotskyists say about Stalin, and the godawful stupid cult of personality screws up the record on Lenin, and god help you if you want to find out anything about anyone left of the Bolsheviks, because the Bolsheviks made damn sure that everything on everyone to their left got surrounded by a thick haze of lies. (I've been working for a while on a front-page post about the Free Territory, an anarchist not-a-government that fielded its own army separate from the Red Army, and that controlled a big chunk of Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, but I keep stalling out because anarchist sources tend to very obviously idealize the Free Territory and its military leadership, while Bolshevik sources are very obviously completely untethered from anything resembling truth.)
So right now I want to say that the story of the early 20th century in Russia was the story of a socialist revolution that was almost immediately hijacked and dismantled by the same security apparatus that ran shit under the Tsar, and that the story of the late 20th century/early 21st is the story of that same security apparatus gradually learning how to consolidate power over the gangster-class capitalists that swooped in after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But I don't know what I'm talking about, and don't even know where to begin on figuring out how to get even a provisional clue about what I'm talking about.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:24 AM on December 29, 2015 [31 favorites]
I wish I had infinite free time to study Russian history, because the impression I get is that it's worthwhile to think of the Russian security apparatus (first the Ohkrana under the Tsar, then the Cheka, then the KGB, then Putin) as having held more or less continual control over the state, despite all of the surface-level ideological shifts that happened over the past 140 years there.
This is based on exactly two pieces of totally meaningless evidence; mostly I'm posting this so that someone who knows what they're talking about can tell me why I'm being reductive.
Piece of not-evidence #1: Before the revolution, the other Bolsheviks apparently had good reason to suspect that Stalin was an Ohkrana agent — though the only stuff I've read about this is stuff related to the 1907 Bolshevik bank robbery.
Piece of not-evidence #2: Putin apparently stands at attention when the State Anthem of the Soviet Union is played. This is not the original Soviet anthem — which is of course the Internationale, a song about fighting for world revolution. Stalin, obviously, had stepped back from the idea of world revolution to the idea of "socialism in one state," and so instituted this new anthem, which was patriotic and nationalist rather than socialist and internationalist, and which was devoted in large part to talking about how keen a guy Stalin was. I'd be stunned if Putin stood for the Internationale; I'm not the slightest bit surprised that he stands for the State Anthem.
Anyway. Sometimes I'm being disingenuous when I say that I know that I don't know what I'm talking about, but in this case I am absolutely not. Russian historiography is damned hard. It's impossible to trust anything Stalinists said about anything, and it's impossible to trust anything Trotskyists say about Stalin, and the godawful stupid cult of personality screws up the record on Lenin, and god help you if you want to find out anything about anyone left of the Bolsheviks, because the Bolsheviks made damn sure that everything on everyone to their left got surrounded by a thick haze of lies. (I've been working for a while on a front-page post about the Free Territory, an anarchist not-a-government that fielded its own army separate from the Red Army, and that controlled a big chunk of Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, but I keep stalling out because anarchist sources tend to very obviously idealize the Free Territory and its military leadership, while Bolshevik sources are very obviously completely untethered from anything resembling truth.)
So right now I want to say that the story of the early 20th century in Russia was the story of a socialist revolution that was almost immediately hijacked and dismantled by the same security apparatus that ran shit under the Tsar, and that the story of the late 20th century/early 21st is the story of that same security apparatus gradually learning how to consolidate power over the gangster-class capitalists that swooped in after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But I don't know what I'm talking about, and don't even know where to begin on figuring out how to get even a provisional clue about what I'm talking about.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:24 AM on December 29, 2015 [31 favorites]
the story of the early 20th century in Russia was the story of a socialist revolution that was almost immediately hijacked and dismantled by the same security apparatus that ran shit under the Tsar
But the Okhrana was totally disbanded in 1917, and its headquarters destroyed. There's no continuity with what comes after. The Cheka/NKVD came along after the Revolution, and was entirely an instrument of the Bolshevik party (and the Left SRs very briefly).
posted by sobarel at 11:01 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
But the Okhrana was totally disbanded in 1917, and its headquarters destroyed. There's no continuity with what comes after. The Cheka/NKVD came along after the Revolution, and was entirely an instrument of the Bolshevik party (and the Left SRs very briefly).
posted by sobarel at 11:01 AM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
yeah, I'm playing fast and loose with the term "same" — the only hypothetical material (rather than ideological or methodological) point of continuity between the Okhrana and the Cheka is through Stalin personally, and even if Stalin was an Okhrana agent, he was (I guess?) just some dude on the payroll who occasionally made reports. It's not like the case of Putin, where — surprise! — a bigwig in the previous system's security agency totally took over the new system.
Holy crap, though, I didn't know the Left SRs ever had a meaningful role in the Cheka. That's fascinating.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:06 AM on December 29, 2015
Holy crap, though, I didn't know the Left SRs ever had a meaningful role in the Cheka. That's fascinating.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:06 AM on December 29, 2015
i'm about halfway through nothing is true and everything is possible, which explores the truly surreal state of contemporary russian culture, i highly recommend it. i picked it up after the listening to a fascinating podcast interview the author gave earlier this month.
posted by p3on at 11:12 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by p3on at 11:12 AM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
I didn't realize Putin was trying to take a hands-off approach to his cult of personality. Due to the huge amount of Putin images and icons--from the rugged shirtlessness to the tshirts to the ridiculous we-love-Putin pop songs to the staggering pile of kitsch you can find on ebay under "Putin"--I had just assumed there was an office in the Kremlin somewhat coordinating these things.
But it makes sense. Who wants to look as ridiculous and out of touch as Kim Jong Un? Putin gets to have it both ways. His image is everywhere due to indirect encouragement from sticks and carrots. But he gets to look stoically removed and push the idea of himself as just a patriotic citizen doing his job. The rough (not exact) parallel with how Dubya's team offloaded much of the pure propaganda to external companies and groups is also interesting.
posted by honestcoyote at 11:36 AM on December 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
But it makes sense. Who wants to look as ridiculous and out of touch as Kim Jong Un? Putin gets to have it both ways. His image is everywhere due to indirect encouragement from sticks and carrots. But he gets to look stoically removed and push the idea of himself as just a patriotic citizen doing his job. The rough (not exact) parallel with how Dubya's team offloaded much of the pure propaganda to external companies and groups is also interesting.
posted by honestcoyote at 11:36 AM on December 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
even if Stalin was an Okhrana agent, he was (I guess?) just some dude on the payroll who occasionally made reports
Stephen Kotkin is quite good in his recent Stalin biography in pointing out that the Okhrana had a policy of starting rumours that certain revolutionaries were in their employ, intending to sew distrust and suspicion. There was probably quite a lot of relief when their HQ and archives were burned in certain quarters however!
posted by sobarel at 12:05 PM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Stephen Kotkin is quite good in his recent Stalin biography in pointing out that the Okhrana had a policy of starting rumours that certain revolutionaries were in their employ, intending to sew distrust and suspicion. There was probably quite a lot of relief when their HQ and archives were burned in certain quarters however!
posted by sobarel at 12:05 PM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
One of my "when I finish my dissertation" projects is writing a science fiction novel that's set on a desperately poor planet at the fringes of known space, and that is actually just a thinly veiled biography of Lenin.
I mean provided I can get it done before Kim Stanley Robinson or China Miéville or whoever beats me to it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:18 PM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
I mean provided I can get it done before Kim Stanley Robinson or China Miéville or whoever beats me to it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:18 PM on December 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
... a Putin t-shirt is displayed in a prominent spot in his stall, the better to protect it, for a limited time at least, from inspections, rivals and police. This isn’t hysteria, it’s pragmatism. Everyone in Russia understands and complies with the code of loyalty.
See also Havel's "The Power of the Powerless" for an eerily similar discussion about shopkeepers and party loyalty.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:23 PM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
See also Havel's "The Power of the Powerless" for an eerily similar discussion about shopkeepers and party loyalty.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:23 PM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
One of my "when I finish my dissertation" projects is writing a science fiction novel that's set on a desperately poor planet at the fringes of known space, and that is actually just a thinly veiled biography of Lenin.
Sounds familiar.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:38 PM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sounds familiar.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:38 PM on December 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
Regardless of whether or not it's fair to compare Lenin to Hitler (I'm of at least three minds about Lenin): nah. I'm thinking something written in a relatively realist style and from a relatively sympathetic perspective — basically, something similar to KSR's trick of putting Bogdanov on Mars, but with the main beats of the plot lifted directly from Lenin's life.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:59 PM on December 29, 2015
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:59 PM on December 29, 2015
This isn’t hysteria, it’s pragmatism. Everyone in Russia understands and complies with the code of loyalty.
It happens that yesterday I watched The Search, written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius (who won an Oscar for The Artist), which is set in war-torn Chechnya. If you read reviews before you watch (as I too often do) you'll probably stay away from the film, for all of the reasons cited by the reviewers, but I stuck with it.
The subplot that involves Kolia, a young Russian coerced into the army to make a drug arrest go away, speaks directly to this post. Its portrayal of how the Russian army transforms this young man with a moral compass into an immoral, calloused, and vicious human being, who must make the choice to be loyal (which means following all of the mores of a homo- & xeno- phobic worldview) in order to survive, is worth the watching of the whole film (the ending leaves you with Kolia's world).
(I'm not saying that the reviewers who panned the film don't make good points, but I might contend that some films get too rough a ride for reaching too high, trying to do too much at once. That's definitely a problem with this film, but the sequences that involve the Russian military experience are worth it, though really difficult to watch.)
posted by kneecapped at 1:05 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
It happens that yesterday I watched The Search, written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius (who won an Oscar for The Artist), which is set in war-torn Chechnya. If you read reviews before you watch (as I too often do) you'll probably stay away from the film, for all of the reasons cited by the reviewers, but I stuck with it.
The subplot that involves Kolia, a young Russian coerced into the army to make a drug arrest go away, speaks directly to this post. Its portrayal of how the Russian army transforms this young man with a moral compass into an immoral, calloused, and vicious human being, who must make the choice to be loyal (which means following all of the mores of a homo- & xeno- phobic worldview) in order to survive, is worth the watching of the whole film (the ending leaves you with Kolia's world).
(I'm not saying that the reviewers who panned the film don't make good points, but I might contend that some films get too rough a ride for reaching too high, trying to do too much at once. That's definitely a problem with this film, but the sequences that involve the Russian military experience are worth it, though really difficult to watch.)
posted by kneecapped at 1:05 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm actually pretty interested in hearing more about this, because this doesn't match my (admittedly limited) understanding of Putin even a little, and it seems like a fairly unusual power play for a politician to make.
Oh, there's future antecedence for that. Beware.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:18 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, there's future antecedence for that. Beware.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:18 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
look guys it's not that Russian shopkeepers want to sell those t-shirts, it's just that we must all venerate Putin and grant him the psychic support he needs to fend off demons from the warp. Otherwise, Tzeentch, Nurgle, and Slaanesh will irrupt into our dimension, and then where will we be, huh?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:39 PM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:39 PM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, we'll certainly have better T-shirts.
posted by Etrigan at 5:00 PM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 5:00 PM on December 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
> That complete paragraph is just as damning as the one sentence. Putin says he doesn't want a cult of personality, and yet selling Putin T-shirts is understood to protect a business from inspections, rivals, and police. If Putin genuinely didn't want a cult of personality, he's pretty well-positioned to wave off two of those three things.
No, it's not "damning," but if (as is depressingly common around here) you approach all linked writing with the attitude "I'm going to find something I can object to so I can dismiss it snarkily," then carry on. If you approach the linked piece with the attitude that the guy seems to know a lot about the subject and it might be worth while assuming he's saying something worth knowing and trying to figure out what it is, you might learn something. Like many things in Russia (and the world at large), it isn't simple. Of course Putin "wants" a cult of personality in the sense that every dictator wants universal adoration widely and loudly manifested, but he also doesn't "want" a cult of personality because cults of personality are bad, and good Bolsheviks (which is what he is at heart) condemn them, just as Stalin did. Yes, Stalin condemned them while enjoying a cult of personality unparalleled in the world before the rise to power of Mao and Kim (who of course modeled theirs on his). These things are complicated, and while I understand the urge to oversimplify so one can check the subject off and forget about it, I keep hoping for more nuanced discussion here than on newspaper comment threads.
> So right now I want to say that the story of the early 20th century in Russia was the story of a socialist revolution that was almost immediately hijacked and dismantled by the same security apparatus that ran shit under the Tsar
Yeah, no, it's a cute premise for an sf novel but has nothing to do with the reality of Soviet history, except in the so-general-as-to-be-useless sense that every dictatorship needs a powerful secret police and said powerful secret police can add to the worries of the dictator. But no, Stalin wasn't a secret Okhrana agent while running the country, and you'll notice he got rid of the secret police chiefs when he wanted them gone, and after his death the squabbling politicos managed to have Beria fired and executed despite the fact that in some sense he was the most powerful man left standing (and, interestingly, he had ideas like letting East Germany leave the Soviet sphere).
posted by languagehat at 5:47 PM on December 29, 2015 [11 favorites]
No, it's not "damning," but if (as is depressingly common around here) you approach all linked writing with the attitude "I'm going to find something I can object to so I can dismiss it snarkily," then carry on. If you approach the linked piece with the attitude that the guy seems to know a lot about the subject and it might be worth while assuming he's saying something worth knowing and trying to figure out what it is, you might learn something. Like many things in Russia (and the world at large), it isn't simple. Of course Putin "wants" a cult of personality in the sense that every dictator wants universal adoration widely and loudly manifested, but he also doesn't "want" a cult of personality because cults of personality are bad, and good Bolsheviks (which is what he is at heart) condemn them, just as Stalin did. Yes, Stalin condemned them while enjoying a cult of personality unparalleled in the world before the rise to power of Mao and Kim (who of course modeled theirs on his). These things are complicated, and while I understand the urge to oversimplify so one can check the subject off and forget about it, I keep hoping for more nuanced discussion here than on newspaper comment threads.
> So right now I want to say that the story of the early 20th century in Russia was the story of a socialist revolution that was almost immediately hijacked and dismantled by the same security apparatus that ran shit under the Tsar
Yeah, no, it's a cute premise for an sf novel but has nothing to do with the reality of Soviet history, except in the so-general-as-to-be-useless sense that every dictatorship needs a powerful secret police and said powerful secret police can add to the worries of the dictator. But no, Stalin wasn't a secret Okhrana agent while running the country, and you'll notice he got rid of the secret police chiefs when he wanted them gone, and after his death the squabbling politicos managed to have Beria fired and executed despite the fact that in some sense he was the most powerful man left standing (and, interestingly, he had ideas like letting East Germany leave the Soviet sphere).
posted by languagehat at 5:47 PM on December 29, 2015 [11 favorites]
Well, Putin probably wants a cult of personality because it's a powerful political tool that he can use for his many machinations, but he probably also doesn't want it because it might place him too much in the spotlight, making him look even more like an autocrat in the eyes of the int'l community. What an ironic problem for a formerly shadowy intelligence agent.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:55 PM on December 29, 2015
posted by Apocryphon at 5:55 PM on December 29, 2015
“The Politest of Men”, If I was a cynical beatnik musician I could wear a shirt with this caption.
Day of the Oprichnik: A Novel is recommended for cynical beatniks, but not for the faint of heart.
posted by ovvl at 6:08 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Day of the Oprichnik: A Novel is recommended for cynical beatniks, but not for the faint of heart.
posted by ovvl at 6:08 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
(I'm not saying that the reviewers who panned the film don't make good points, but I might contend that some films get too rough a ride for reaching too high, trying to do too much at once. That's definitely a problem with this film, but the sequences that involve the Russian military experience are worth it, though really difficult to watch.)
The main problem with The Search is that it's an adaptation of 1940s Hollywood shmalz. There's nothing wrong with reaching too high; it's just ... maybe, if you're gonna borrow a ladder, borrow a good one, y'know?
posted by Sys Rq at 8:26 PM on December 29, 2015
The main problem with The Search is that it's an adaptation of 1940s Hollywood shmalz. There's nothing wrong with reaching too high; it's just ... maybe, if you're gonna borrow a ladder, borrow a good one, y'know?
posted by Sys Rq at 8:26 PM on December 29, 2015
Of course Putin "wants" a cult of personality... but he also doesn't "want" a cult of personality...
So you're saying that Putin's words shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value?
posted by Etrigan at 8:32 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
So you're saying that Putin's words shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value?
posted by Etrigan at 8:32 PM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
schmod: “I almost prefer this to the way that we sent our youngest, poorest, and most vulnerable citizens to die in Iraq[…]”Cf. “The Price of Professionalization,” John Q. Bolton [No Relation], Small Wars Journal, 25 December 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 8:51 PM on December 29, 2015
He doesn’t want a cult of personality — he’s said as much on numerous occasions. And as this is the Word and Will of The Great Leader, you know it in your heart of hearts to be a Universal Truth. Praise Be!
posted by quinndexter at 1:16 AM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by quinndexter at 1:16 AM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
> So you're saying that Putin's words shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value?
Jesus. Well, like I said, carry on!
posted by languagehat at 8:45 AM on December 30, 2015
Jesus. Well, like I said, carry on!
posted by languagehat at 8:45 AM on December 30, 2015
Carry on ascribing hidden motives to people that I'm not even fundamentally disagreeing with and dismissing discussion because I'm so clearly smarter than everyone else in the room? Or do you still hold the exclusive patent rights to that?
posted by Etrigan at 8:52 AM on December 30, 2015
posted by Etrigan at 8:52 AM on December 30, 2015
It's not a matter of being smarter than everyone else in the room, it's a matter of saying something worth saying, reading, or responding to. If you had something substantive to say with your on-the-face-of-it vacuous "So you're saying that Putin's words shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value?" I suggest you say it.
posted by languagehat at 10:58 AM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by languagehat at 10:58 AM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Okay, here goes: Your first comment in this thread was chiding paper chromatographologist as being ridiculous for saying "It seems that part of this article's argument is based on taking Putin's words at face value. That undermines it a bit..." Your second comment in this thread said, and I'm quoting again here, "Of course Putin 'wants' a cult of personality... but he also doesn't 'want' a cult of personality..." That looks an awful lot like the same thing that paper chromatographologist said.
You have commented four times to this thread and insulted people to their proverbial faces in each of those comments. Your shtick of reading people's minds and determining that they're the biased ones is boring and obvious.
posted by Etrigan at 11:09 AM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
You have commented four times to this thread and insulted people to their proverbial faces in each of those comments. Your shtick of reading people's minds and determining that they're the biased ones is boring and obvious.
posted by Etrigan at 11:09 AM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will continue to be intolerant of people saying ignorant things about Russia, just as many people around here are intolerant of people saying ignorant things about, say, video games.
posted by languagehat at 1:26 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by languagehat at 1:26 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, and as for "That looks an awful lot like the same thing that paper chromatographologist said": I'm at a loss as to how you could think that unless you were simply looking for a quick gotcha. There is nothing in what I have written that suggests that the article takes Putin's words at face value. The article is a knowledgeable and subtle analysis of Putin's effect on the society he rules.
posted by languagehat at 1:29 PM on December 30, 2015
posted by languagehat at 1:29 PM on December 30, 2015
It's ok to know fuck-all about Russia, but if you're a Russia-watcher, or even if you just agree with the idea that other countries have ways of being that can fall outside your frame of reference, the steady parade of Hot Takes and Here's My Reckon and This Article Was Written By An Idiot can make the thread look an awful lot like talkback radio, you know? It's fine to listen. It's fine to ask questions. It's fine to let yourself be the student rather than insisting on being the lecturer. Have a great NYE everyone.
posted by um at 7:20 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by um at 7:20 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's also better to wield your knowledge like a torch, rather than a cudgel.
Happy New Year, you beautiful old MetaFilter!
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:57 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
Happy New Year, you beautiful old MetaFilter!
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:57 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm sorry you feel that way
Oh my god, you are quoting the textbook. Forget it. I guess we just can't have this conversation.
posted by Etrigan at 10:14 PM on December 30, 2015
Oh my god, you are quoting the textbook. Forget it. I guess we just can't have this conversation.
posted by Etrigan at 10:14 PM on December 30, 2015
Forget it. I guess we just can't have this conversation.
Perhaps its a good thing if nonexperts keep their nonexpert opinions to themselves. Perhaps there's a thread where this could be demonstrated?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:22 PM on December 30, 2015
Perhaps its a good thing if nonexperts keep their nonexpert opinions to themselves. Perhaps there's a thread where this could be demonstrated?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:22 PM on December 30, 2015
I don't mind nonexperts having nonexpert opinions, as long as they present them as such and don't presume they can dismiss stuff by people who clearly know much more than they do. We are, after all, all nonexperts about nearly everything. I myself read threads about many things I know little about, but I don't jump in and confidently say "Based on the three rap albums I've listened to, I think the linked article by someone who has both rapped and produced rap records for years is full of shit!" I listen and learn.
Look, I know I can be short-tempered and overly acerbic, but I'm feeling better today after a good dinner, a good scotch, and a good night's sleep, so let me address the issue in what is hopefully a less rebarbative way. This whole idea of "taking words at face value" doesn't really make sense if you think about it. When somebody says "Good morning," do you take that at face value? What would that even mean? Is the person saying the morning is good, and would it be worthwhile to weigh the evidence for and against that statement? Is the person saying they hope you'll have a good morning, and if so, would it be worthwhile trying to decide to what extent they mean it? What does it mean to take Putin at face value?
Let me give an example from an earlier phase of Russian history that may shed light on what I mean. In the 1920s, Stalin gradually took over more and more power in the new Soviet Union. Now, Stalin was the acknowledged nationalities expert among the Bolsheviks, and he had helped Lenin create the standard Bolshevik line, which was that nationalism was a necessary stage on the long path to an international socialism in which it would fade away and while great-power nationalism should be discouraged, small peoples should be encouraged to develop their own languages and cultures so that (freed of the struggle to preserve their nationhood, which brought classes together) they could have a healthy class struggle in which the proletariat would defeat their class oppressors. So for most of the '20s Stalin promoted the project of korenizatsiya ("rooting," or making sure each nation, however small, had its own areas where it could run its own affairs), and Moscow made sure the Yukaghirs were taught Yukaghir culture in Yukaghir, with Yukaghir epics being invented if necessary to provide the necessary cultural icon to do for them what Homer did for the Greeks and Pushkin for the Russians. There was, as you might imagine, lots of resentment among the Russians who had been running things in all these far-flung areas and basically wanted the locals to become Russians or die off, but that was the mandate from Moscow and it was fulfilled.
On the other hand, as the decade wore on Stalin became more and more concerned about the effects of this policy, especially among large border nationalities like Ukrainians and Poles. Instead of heightening class struggle and bringing the locals together with Russians in socialist solidarity, it seemed to be heightening separatist sentiment and raising the specter of (say) the Poles of the USSR making common cause with the Poles of (hostile) Poland. So he started pushing back, emphasizing the dangers of excessive localism and having people arrested and tried for being too zealous in promoting local culture. So at one and the same time you had two opposite policies being vigorously promoted from the Kremlin; one set of bureaucrats was busily promoting local culture while another was busily opposing it. What was a Soviet functionary in, say, Ukraine to do?
In practice, here's how it worked out: if you were too zealous in suppressing local identity, you might lose your job, whereas if you were too zealous in promoting it, you might be shot. Most people drew the appropriate conclusions, and korenizatsiya started melting away. But—and this is crucial—Stalin hadn't changed his mind in any clear sense. He still thought promoting local identity was necessary from a theoretical point of view, so no one dared say it was a bad thing. He had simply acquired a new and opposite set of habits based on practical worries about the international situation. So what sense does it make to ask which he "really" thought or believed? The same goes for Putin and the personality cult, or (for that matter) for most of us in various situations. People are complicated, and they don't get less complicated just because they achieve power.
posted by languagehat at 8:43 AM on January 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Look, I know I can be short-tempered and overly acerbic, but I'm feeling better today after a good dinner, a good scotch, and a good night's sleep, so let me address the issue in what is hopefully a less rebarbative way. This whole idea of "taking words at face value" doesn't really make sense if you think about it. When somebody says "Good morning," do you take that at face value? What would that even mean? Is the person saying the morning is good, and would it be worthwhile to weigh the evidence for and against that statement? Is the person saying they hope you'll have a good morning, and if so, would it be worthwhile trying to decide to what extent they mean it? What does it mean to take Putin at face value?
Let me give an example from an earlier phase of Russian history that may shed light on what I mean. In the 1920s, Stalin gradually took over more and more power in the new Soviet Union. Now, Stalin was the acknowledged nationalities expert among the Bolsheviks, and he had helped Lenin create the standard Bolshevik line, which was that nationalism was a necessary stage on the long path to an international socialism in which it would fade away and while great-power nationalism should be discouraged, small peoples should be encouraged to develop their own languages and cultures so that (freed of the struggle to preserve their nationhood, which brought classes together) they could have a healthy class struggle in which the proletariat would defeat their class oppressors. So for most of the '20s Stalin promoted the project of korenizatsiya ("rooting," or making sure each nation, however small, had its own areas where it could run its own affairs), and Moscow made sure the Yukaghirs were taught Yukaghir culture in Yukaghir, with Yukaghir epics being invented if necessary to provide the necessary cultural icon to do for them what Homer did for the Greeks and Pushkin for the Russians. There was, as you might imagine, lots of resentment among the Russians who had been running things in all these far-flung areas and basically wanted the locals to become Russians or die off, but that was the mandate from Moscow and it was fulfilled.
On the other hand, as the decade wore on Stalin became more and more concerned about the effects of this policy, especially among large border nationalities like Ukrainians and Poles. Instead of heightening class struggle and bringing the locals together with Russians in socialist solidarity, it seemed to be heightening separatist sentiment and raising the specter of (say) the Poles of the USSR making common cause with the Poles of (hostile) Poland. So he started pushing back, emphasizing the dangers of excessive localism and having people arrested and tried for being too zealous in promoting local culture. So at one and the same time you had two opposite policies being vigorously promoted from the Kremlin; one set of bureaucrats was busily promoting local culture while another was busily opposing it. What was a Soviet functionary in, say, Ukraine to do?
In practice, here's how it worked out: if you were too zealous in suppressing local identity, you might lose your job, whereas if you were too zealous in promoting it, you might be shot. Most people drew the appropriate conclusions, and korenizatsiya started melting away. But—and this is crucial—Stalin hadn't changed his mind in any clear sense. He still thought promoting local identity was necessary from a theoretical point of view, so no one dared say it was a bad thing. He had simply acquired a new and opposite set of habits based on practical worries about the international situation. So what sense does it make to ask which he "really" thought or believed? The same goes for Putin and the personality cult, or (for that matter) for most of us in various situations. People are complicated, and they don't get less complicated just because they achieve power.
posted by languagehat at 8:43 AM on January 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
What was a Soviet functionary in, say, Ukraine to do?
Let a nation starve to death, as history would have it. If that was to save his own skin, well, sorry, that guy's still an irredeemable asshole of the highest order.
Tyranny is as tyranny does. I'm sorry if that's too pithy, but its pithiness does not make it untrue.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:03 PM on January 3, 2016
Let a nation starve to death, as history would have it. If that was to save his own skin, well, sorry, that guy's still an irredeemable asshole of the highest order.
Tyranny is as tyranny does. I'm sorry if that's too pithy, but its pithiness does not make it untrue.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:03 PM on January 3, 2016
I take it you're more interested in moral posturing than learning about history. Almost everything written about the Soviet Union in pre-Gorbachov days (in the US) would have pleased you: "Communism is bad! There, now you know everything you need to know!" But some of us like to dig a little deeper.
posted by languagehat at 11:07 AM on January 4, 2016
posted by languagehat at 11:07 AM on January 4, 2016
Oh, and to save us both the inevitable misdirected zinger on your part: yes, communism is bad. I've said so repeatedly on this site, but I don't imagine that would stop a dedicated moral posturer from equating my "dig a little deeper" with "communism wasn't that bad."
posted by languagehat at 11:09 AM on January 4, 2016
posted by languagehat at 11:09 AM on January 4, 2016
Dude. What the hell. Can you go thirty seconds without insulting someone?
I'll let you have the thread all to yourself now, since that's all you seem to want.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:29 AM on January 4, 2016
I'll let you have the thread all to yourself now, since that's all you seem to want.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:29 AM on January 4, 2016
« Older Nieman Lab's Crowdsourced | Theresa May and the Deportation of "Immigrant"... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by leotrotsky at 7:23 AM on December 29, 2015 [27 favorites]