"We like to isolate ourselves from one another, from the state, from the world. This allowed many of us to build vibrant, hopeful, energetic lives against a grim backdrop of arrests and prison. But in the process, we became insular and lost sight of everyone else’s interests. We must now put aside our individual concerns and accept our common responsibility for the war. Such an act is, first and foremost, a moral necessity. But it could also be the first step toward a new Russian nation — a nation that could talk to the world in a language other than wars and threats, a nation that others will learn not to fear. It is toward creating this Russia that we, outcast and exiled and persecuted, should bend our efforts."
Writes Ilia Krasilshchik, in "Russians Must Accept the Truth. We Failed" (NYT). Krasilschchik is "the former publisher of Meduza, an independent news outlet."
पोस्ट्स
३१ टिप्पण्या:
More liberal media talking past the sale…
"a new Russian nation"
First time in 500 years?
"a nation that could talk to the world in a language other than wars and threats"
It has, in music, literature, chess, and mathematics.
"a nation that others will learn not to fear"
A big country, even if second-rate, always inspires fear. It also fears for its own security. These are facts of international politics since time immemorial. The question is how to manage them. A new Russian nation would be nice, truly, but can it act on the world scene in a way fundamentally different than any previous regime?
Ah yes the NYT's demands that the Russian people accept their role as the Biden Regime's 2 minute hate object for this week.
No word as to why Biden is giving Putin 130$ a barrel oil.
Can't wait for the leftists to start chanting no blood for oil as soon as a Republican takes office.
I don't think he understands what "individualistic" or "leave me alone" mean.
'We must now put aside our individual concerns and accept our common responsibility for the war.'
The 'NYT' pimping for collectivism.
Who would have guessed?
What?! In a former Communist country. Communist comes from the word "communal." It's all about a shared economy.
America is an individualistic society.
Liar.
Interesting view. Never thought of Russian society as an 'individualistic' society. But I guess it makes sense as a defense to the overwhelming collectivism they have had to live under for over 100 years.
"But it could also be the first step toward a new Russian nation — a nation that could talk to the world in a language other than wars and threats, a nation that others will learn not to fear."
Would that this could be true.
"We like to isolate ourselves from one another, from the state, from the world."
I immediately thought of CS Lewis's portrayal of Hell in his book The Great Divorce when I read this.
I also thought of how amazing Russian literature is, the kind of complex, deep insight of Dostoevsky, for instance. And also the Russians that I know who are really good people, funny, generous, and other ways that give me a good opinion
Like all cultures, there's good people and bad, but different eras seem to encourage one or the other to take charge of the overall society. The Russians too are oppressed by this state of things, being caught in the oligarchic corruption and controls.
Pray for Ukraine for their suffering and pray for Russia too, the oppressors need freedom as much as the oppressed because both sides are being trampled by evil, sociopathic, corrupt leaders.
Zorin teaches at Oxford and his specialization appears to be the pre-Revolutionary nobility. I wonder if he really is that in touch with the Soviet era Russia he grew up in or with peasant, merchant, and proletarian Russia of earlier centuries. Doubtless, though, Russia has grown more individualistic in the last thirty years.
Russians don't look to be overthrowing Putin. His popularity is up. Everyone, go make friends with Russians and find out for yourself.
More Biden stooges hoping for billions in bribes and payoffs.
So, Russians do not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry, including: racism, sexism, ageism that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, normalizes color blocs (e.g. "people of color"), color quotas (e.g. "Jew privilege"), and affirmative discrimination. They are not of the Progressive Church, Corporation, Clinic, etc. that subscribe to the Pro-Choice "ethical" religion, which is only sustainable in Western societies, China, etc. through capital (i.e. retained) earnings in market economies, and euphemisms and semantics games that turn black holes into black whores h/t NAACP, babies into "burdens" h/t Obama (i.e. wicked solution), women into men and viceversa through surgical, medical, and psychiatric corruption, etc.
Putin's Russia is slightly more corrupt than our own government.
"Interesting view. Never thought of Russian society as an 'individualistic' society. But I guess it makes sense as a defense to the overwhelming collectivism they have had to live under for over 100 years."
It's the individualism of not saying anything, not doing anything, and even not seeing anything because it's not my problem.
Oh good grief. The USA media is so good at finding people who will join us in attacking their countries and leaders. This comment reminded me what "right-minded" Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Serbians, white South Africans, Iranians, etc. said when they were quoted by the New York Times/WaPo when the USA decided to go after their countries and leaders. Russia doesn't need any soul searching.
And where are the articles on China? where are the soul-searching Chinese intellectuals complaining about China's dictatorship? And then there's Cuba. Of course, at one time the NYT was labeling Castro: President castro. Like he was ever elected to anything.
I can see Russians as individualistic in a personal, not political, sense. It reminds me of the UK in pre-Thatcher days when it was run by the trades unions and society was breaking down. The phrase- "I've got mine, Jack." was used to describe everyone's attitude. I have mine and screw you, basically. I think that's what the person may mean by individualistic. Grab what you, can while you can.
“Brimsky in teh Boomskov!”
—- Uncle Charlie, circa 1965
Its the individualism of disengaging and hoping that no-one recognizes you. As such its the individualism of non-existence and hoping you'll never be noticed which really isn't individualism at all. If you are a non-existent person, are you an individual?
I keep on wondering why Putin went to war? The only rational answer I can come up with is that he truly believed he could get away with it. Big mistake and miscalculation. He still may be able to bully his way out of it but the costs will be so high that it will be a pyrrhic victory.
It's the individualism of not saying anything, not doing anything, and even not seeing anything because it's not my problem.
It's because for generations, anyone who did say something, or for that matter, millions who said nothing, were suddenly disappeared. We may not be in Stalin's day any longer. But the former KGB officer running things was brought up by that mentality and still operates in a similar way. He made his way dispatching oligarchs and taking over their businesses and bank accounts. People running for office against him have suddenly died, or not so suddenly- from plutonium poisoning.
Those living every day just want to get through their lives. Saying something in Russia is far more dangerous than in the US. Unless, of course, you say "Ivermectin!" or "no vaccine mandates!". Then, you too, can be disappeared.
It's the individualism of not saying anything, not doing anything, and even not seeing anything because it's not my problem.
It's the individualism of not saying anything, not doing anything, and even not seeing anything because it's going to be my problem if I get involved.
FIFY.
It's not an "individualistic" society, it's an "atomized" one.
The situation is not that Russia values individual rights / liberty / dignity
The situation is that the Communists completely destroyed civil society, other than possibly the Eastern Orthodox Church, which they co-opted.
The situation is that any grouping other than the Holy State / Party was considered a threat to Communist rule, and so destroyed. "Family"? Children were taught to inform on their parents. Spouses were forced to denounce each other.
What makes a functioning society is connections. "My fellow Americans" isn't just a phrase.
One of the big goals of the CRT / "Diversity" BS is to divide all Americans from each other. Because if that person with a different skin color is inherently and fundamentally different from you, then there's no point in searching for common ground.
In fact, attempts for common ground are either "racist!" or "cultural appropriation".
Because people with no connections are easily bullied by the State. And they're very easy too corrupt.
When you're corrupt, and think you'll be at the top of the pile "getting your beak wet" on everyone else's corruption, having a society where everyone else is corrupt means more places to wet your beak.
Russia is what "Western elites" want to turn the rest of us into.
So it surprising how many people who claim to oppose those "elites", are nevertheless desperate to side with Russia
Michael K said...
Putin's Russia is slightly more corrupt than our own government.
Putin's Russia is massively more corrupt than our own government.
Now, if the people who brought us Biden get their way, that will change, and "slightly" will be correct.
But, for now, the people claiming "slightly" are pretty much the people pushing for us to become more like Russia, either intentionally or not.
Because the process of hiding differences is rather important if you're trying to make them go away. Why get upset with Biden's corruption, if "everyone is doing it"?
Ann Althouse said...
["Interesting view. Never thought of Russian society as an 'individualistic' society. But I guess it makes sense as a defense to the overwhelming collectivism they have had to live under for over 100 years."]
"It's the individualism of not saying anything, not doing anything, and even not seeing anything because it's not my problem."
The opposite of rugged individualism, probably going back at least as far as Czarist Russia.
Russians aren't individualistic. They are low-trust. Given their history, it makes sense to not trust the government or even your neighbors.
For all it’s supposed mysteriousness and unpredictability, Russia is a fairly well known quantity (as is Putin). “No NATO in Ukraine” was clearly spelled since 1991, when Putin was just an errand boy in KGB East Berlin office. So the question is not about Russia (or Putin).
The real question is, what is so good about Ukraine? Look through Ukrainian history and you see mass murder, mayhem and self-inflicted suffering. Curiously, nobody looks at Ukrainian history nowadays. Genocide against Jews and Poles, banditism and alliances with Hitler, complete modern corruption are not convenient for present day propaganda. But let’s put aside all the bad things and ask, is there anything good about Ukraine?
Granted, Ukraine serves as a perfect irritant to Russia, but for what purpose? Maybe it is as simple as using Ukraine to maintain some geopolitical balance. Is there anything else?
AA says "It's the individualism of not saying anything, not doing anything, and even not seeing anything because it's not my problem."
If you think there's nothing you can do about an issue, matter, problem, situation, etc. because it is too big and you are too small, and you feel you cannot make a difference, then it is rational not to expend energy, effort, time, money, etc, to remedy the problem. Just like an individual can rationalize why he or she should not vote. If there is only downside or personal risk or a choice of two evils (there's always another choice) in acting to remedy a problem, and there is little hope that you can solve it, then why bother? I can see how Russians in particular would have this attitude.
Russians moved away from Central Russia to Siberia, the Ukraine, Central Asia, and maybe the Baltic lands to have that kind of independence from the central government. Those who stayed put in the Central Russian core weren't risk-takers like that. The government was always imposed from above without ordinary people having much say in its actions, and they put up with what it did. Also, like most societies before the age of mass affluence, there wasn't much opportunity for much individualism for most people.
the individualism of not saying anything, not doing anything, and even not seeing anything
But of course lots of people in the USSR regularly informed on the activities of their neighbors and colleagues.
"Individualistic." You spelled "Legitimately Paranoid" wrong, Andrei.
Candide said...
For all it’s supposed mysteriousness and unpredictability, Russia is a fairly well known quantity (as is Putin). “No NATO in Ukraine” was clearly spelled since 1991, when Putin was just an errand boy in KGB East Berlin office. So the question is not about Russia (or Putin).
1: Really? Links?
2: Who gives a shit?
The people of Ukraine have a right to make decisions for themselves and their country. As long as they're not committing acts of war against Russia (and joining NATO is not an act of war), Russia does not and should not get a vote.
The real question is, what is so good about Ukraine?
Look through Ukrainian history and you see mass murder, mayhem and self-inflicted suffering.
Now read up on the Holodomor
Then fuck off
According to research by Geert Hofstede and others, the USA scores 91 in individualism and Russia 39.
https://geerthofstede.com/country-comparison-graphs/
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा