This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We have a fair number of Russians and Russophiles in here, so I thought I’d ask for opinions about Alexei Navalny.
He’s the subject of a documentary (one that could win an Oscar next month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navalny_(film)) which I watched recently, and I followed it up with a video mentioned near the end of the doc that his team made about Putin’s lucrative circle of corruption. As a skeptic, I know not to believe everything I see, hear, and read, but I was wondering if there is a deeper counter-argument to Navalny’s narrative and positions than, “He’s a tool of western governments/the CIA to besmirch Putin and Russia.”
In the documentary about Navalny (on HBOMax), he’s depicted as a jovial but committed critic of Putin, and one who has so annoyed the Russian leader, that Putin won’t even deign to mention Navalny’s name on TV, but refers to him only in the form of “that person.” Navalny is questioned briefly about his past appearances with questionable nationalist/racist political movements and he’s unapologetic, explaining that he’s trying to build a coalition that can challenge the establishment and can’t afford the luxury of turning anyone away (which is similar to how some supporters of Trump’s 2016 campaign explained his flirtations with Alex Jones and some less savory radio personalities). I don’t put much stock in official Russian accusations that its enemies are racists or Nazis, anyway, as I see those as arguments made in bad faith with the sole intention of eroding opposition enthusiasm and not as issues that Putin’s racially diverse and sensitive supporters actually care about. Its arguments-as-soldiers on top of pot-calling-kettle.
The documentary then depicts the aftermath of Navalny’s poisoning with a nerve agent, which hits him while in-flight across Russia, the fatal consequences of which are only averted by an emergency landing and, after some political jostling, his eventual release from a Russian hospital to seek care in Europe. While in recovery, Navalny teams up with a Bulgarian hacker to reveal the identities of the assassins, and they even trick one into discussing the details of the plot over the phone. It’s a bombshell scene, if it can be believed. (The filmmakers contend that the scientist who was tricked by Navalny’s impersonation of a post-mission auditor disappeared shortly after their conversation was made public.)
When Navalny returns to Russia, he is detained at the airport, and has been in prison ever since. But a couple of days after his arrest, his team drops a two-hour YouTube video titled “Putin's palace. The story of the world's biggest bribe” (https://youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0&authuser=2), which details the formation of Putin's network of graft and embezzlement and how it has poured billions in state funds into the construction of a lavish secluded palace, in addition to providing jobs and housing for Putin’s mistresses and their families. Again, maybe it’s all false, but it’s densely reported and has a sheen of credibility.
So am I a fool falling for wholly concocted neoliberal propaganda besmirching the world’s only remaining champion of traditional values? What’s the direct counterargument to Navalny’s claims about Putin’s corruption or attempt to assassinate a pesky political opponent? I’m certain that Navalny is flawed, as are we all, and I am loath to trust any politician. But I like Navalny – he comes off as a “happy warrior” with a worthy cause – and he seems honest. Without resorting to ad hominem non sequiturs, tell me why I shouldn’t take him seriously? Even if he is a Nazi, is he wrong about Putin?
I've updated my estimates for his poisoning story and other botched poisonings to near 1.0 in light of the war. Main reason to doubt them was not lack of evidence but the prior for FSB, GRU etc. not being staffed by actual retarded mooks from some Austin Powers movie – I've lived my whole life under kakistocracy, but still… – uh, well.
With that out of the way: Navalny is a simple honest guy. He's not a liberal nor a Western agent of influence nor «another Putin». He is an extremely rare sort of a political figure – a Russian ethnic nationalist, with necessary civnat aspects. The notion of Russian Nationalism is, in the corner of the world that @Stefferi speaks from, usually conflated with «Russian Imperialism» and just generally «Russian», which is to say, dangerous scum. There is a difference, however. Nationalism holds that the state exists for Russian people, while Imperialism says, in effect, that Russian people are to be abused and impoverished, so that they seek dignity and livelihood through the collective greatness of the state.
This distinction may be hard to parse for Russian neighbors, because 1) they live in nation states or indeed ethnostates, and 2) their political culture is democratic – putting it bluntly, attuned to sensibilities of a humble xenophobic peasant. That implies absence of reciprocity, game theory, or any other nerdy high decoupler shit we indulge in here. The late Krylov, a more extreme nationalist than Navalny but of the same basic mold, had spent his life trying to explain to Russians why this is the way to go. His quote comes to mind:
A typical Westernist in Russia is someone like the social anthropologist Alexandra Eikhenwald, who has said just a month ago that «The Eichenwald family has contributed enough to Russian culture and we don't belong here any more». What contributors does she include in her boast?
Uncle-in-law Semyon Brudnik, commissar of the 3rd Insurgent Regiment of Bogun, the first Ukrainian division of the Red Army, commanded by Shchors, which was particularly cruel to Russian officers and intelligentsia. «Was head of the finance department at Mosfilm», together with her aunt actually raised her. Grandfather Alexander Eichenwald who scientifically justified collectivization – «He had a paradoxical way of thinking, and tried to get to the bottom of everything. He stood for social justice, joined the Bolshevik Party at 16, was a member of the Bukharin School and authored the first monograph on the Soviet economy» – which contributed to a famine and several million deaths under Stalin. Got purged. And another grandfather, the most fondly remembered, Moysey Gorb - NKVD Senior Major, Molchanov's loyal aide. Purged too. Wiki about Molchanov: «1931-1936. - Head of the Secret and Political Department of the Joint State Political Directorate (OGPU) under the SNK - GUGB NKVD of the USSR, Commissar of State Security of the 2nd rank. As head of the key department of the GPU-NKVD of the USSR he was engaged in arresting all real and imaginary opponents of the Soviet power - peasants who opposed collectivization, Trotskyites, supporters of «rightwing opposition», clergymen, monarchists, ex-activists of minor parties, national movements, members of foreign communist parties, etc». Her parents already regressed to the mean: «dissident, poet, translator, critic», «teacher, human rights activist». All those names are mentioned as victims of oppression and great noble souls, with the quiet dignity of a lineage that has left an indelible mark in the history of Russian people.
But I digress. Hopefully you can understand, if not endorse, the fact that such candidates are non-starters in any sort of a democracy that asks Russians; and their friends too. Navalny is not a Westernist in this sense. Thus he is popular, yet harassed both within and without Russia. I suspect he came back after his poisoning precisely to avoid getting killed by some zealous «anticolonial» activist.
His position is unapologetically pro-Russian and pragmatic. Wars of expansion are bad because Russians die in them for no gain; some purported greatness of the Empire does not matter more than this toll. This calculation could have been different in another age; we should be content with how much was recognized after ages have changed. (The implication that things could conceivably change once more is not lost on readers seeking to find fault). Liberal parliamentary democracy is good: it allows for easier development and removal of corrupt parasites. Wokeness and anticolonial apologetics are bad because they get easily exploited by e.g. tribalist peoples from Caucasus. Racism bad: leads to delusions and precludes the possibility of cooperation with non-Russians who are amenable to that. Deportations of illegals and criminals; concerns about demographic replacement due to an open border with Muslim states; all that stuff. And so on and so forth – a systemic application of a position of a right-wing European politician who has a shot at winning, someone like Orban, Meloni or Zemmour. Even Trump, perhaps. That thread of his of his linked by @sliders1234, and the original Russian text, are both written from this perspective, and thus concede: commitment to 1991 borders, non-intervention in Ukrainian affairs, reparations, for the Russian benefit.
But consider QTs. «your country shouldn’t be developing. It should be paying for the development of the countries it hurt.» «The world needs sanctions to be sure russia doesn't have a possibility to start the war again» . «no no no. You guys have no say in it. You will pay reparations whether you like it or not. We don't care what is acceptable to you.» etc. This is a popular sentiment. Think of this for a moment, can you imagine an electable politician in any Western country – strike this, any country – being expected to cheer for his country' loss in a war? However, what is expected of Navalny is not that but unconditional submission and kowtowing. This is clearly a politically suicidal attitude, unless imposed by outside force; which is also admitted by some as the goal.
It's worth pausing on Galeev's tactics. Here he frames Navalny's old gun rights ad as part of a campaign advocating violence. It is unseemly, but the situation with guns in Russia is that they're mainly owned by cops and [ethnic] mafia. The video about deportation of illegals that he opens with is supposed to enrage the same crowd that hyperventilates on Twitter about genocidal Trumpists; it explicitly denounces violence of the sort that Galeev seeks to pin on Navalny for the rest of the thread.
Navalny of that era is a shitposter and an equal opportunity dehumanizer – calling Georgians during the war «rodents» (it's a one letter substitution), depicting ethnic criminals as the Men in Black cockroach, labeling Russian Neo-Nazis «Caries», with solutions being respectively: an HQ missile strike, legalizing guns, and «sanitizing». But also, arguably, he was a deradicalizing force. This trend persists: he offers Russians a way to step back and make amends with a semblance of self-respect.
But that is no good to «Russia experts» from Baltics or Poland who drive these decisions in Washington, nor to peoples near the border. Russia is a historical threat. Therefore, no positive – for Russians – movement ought to be supported, while separatism and all harmful tendencies – including tyranny, corruption, militarism! – aided and exploited. Helping the enemy die is worth the temporary pain, they think.
So even if Navalny miraculously took power and proved to be the opposite of Putin in all ways that matter, he'd still be decried as a tyrant, and likely a worse one. The only good Russian is a dead one; the only good Czar is one who presides over Russian deaths.
I was hoping you would chime in with something like this! Very interesting. I don't think I had really understood before the distinction you make between Russian Nationalists and Russian Imperialists. It makes a lot sense.
Imperial mindset is nothing exclusive to Russia - European countries, including ones known as the most liberal today, fought hard to keep their empires for pure "national honor".
And this was far from unpopular at this time - remember this guy known as founding father of anti elitist anti intellectual small gubmint populism?
Guess what he thought about the issue of his day, the desperate attempt of France to save remains of her greatness?
No need for taxes to keep our grand world Empire! It could pay for itself, super profits would flow if not for these dastardly Yanks and Yooz.
There are still people in the West looking back to the past greatness, but overwhelming majority moved on. No reason why Russia couldn't move on too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link