From Russia with Hate

[exatreide]

http://current.com/items/84906361_from_russia_with_hate

There's a interesting video of the far right's growing power in Russia. Funny in a nation that 23 million died to prevent Facism from taking over, the radical right is springing from within.

thoughts?

[Edric O]

This has been growing for some time, and it was only to be expected. The core idea of the far right is the recovery of lost glory. The entire thinking of the far right revolves around this theme: "We were a great and powerful nation once, but then those evil foreigners ruined everything. Death to the foreigners! Our nation must become great again!"

As such, any country that used to be a great power but was recently humiliated and lost a great deal of power and prestige is the most fertile ground for the growth of the far right. If that country happens to be ruled by a corrupt, conservative regime, the far right thrives even more, because (a) the regime kindly does the work of repressing the left while promoting nationalism and ignoring the far right, and (b) the corruption of the regime enables the far right to use very effective "holier-than-thou" (or rather "more-patriotic-than-thou") propaganda: "Yes," says the far right, "everything the government tells you about the greatness of our nation is true, but they are weak and corrupt and cannot lead our nation to glory! We are strong, we are the only true patriots!"

All of the above are happening in Russia today. All of the above were also happening in Weimar Germany during its last years. There is, however, one major difference: The Weimar government was fragile, aimless and quite pathetic. The present Russian government has a firm grip on power (or at least it seems to). Should that grip on power slip in the near future, however - perhaps with the help of some Western stupidity - there is a real chance that Russia might go fascist.

In any case, with the way things are going, I strongly suggest that Jewish people in Russia should consider leaving the country.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, at first Russia never was a "great power", most of its wars in history were defensive or against underdeveloped nations, while the population (compared to west) always lived in poverty. Against Turks and Germans they did good work, but that's nothing "recent". Fascists always look on history (and myths about it), and the history of Russia is far different from that of Germany. Also, it is aimed against immigration, it doesn't have a clearly defined enemy. In fact the most Jews had to leave Russia after the WW2... On the other hand, young nazi movements have a positive side too, they are usually opposed to drug abuse, work hard, have a sense of law in most areas but violence. Also the nazi ideology reflects only in symbols and music. In a country with such terrible demographics it can only help, if held in limits.

[Tatar Khan]

Well there are still good number of Jews that have not left for Israel, but Russia also has about 100 plus other ethnic groups besides Russians, so the new movement is not welcomed and neither it is widespread as it made out to be. Lastly the nazi movement in Russia is made up of mostly idiots who are dropped out school and overall there is nothing about following laws, anti-drug or etc. in their movements. It just gangs that are in denial that they are common street thugs.

Russia was a great power in Europe during the second part of 1700s and 1800s and during the communist era it was big enough to challenge the West. In terms of poverty the Russian peasants during the 1700s were the same level as the rest of Europe and during 1800s they were also close to the same level. It was during late 1800s that the inability to industrialise properly started to decrease the Russia's might.

During the late soviet era (before Gorbachev reforms) Soviet Union was living quite nicely, it might not have suffered from consumer culture of the west due to lack of credit stimulus to the economy but the Soviets enjoyed a very good lifestyle.

[Edric O]

Caid, you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. As Tatar_Khan pointed out, Russia was a great European power during the 18th and 19th centuries (which is to say, after Peter the Great and before the West achieved uncontested domination with industrialization and imperialism in the late 19th century). Then it became a relatively minor player, until the Soviet Union rose to become a global superpower after World War 2. And now, after the end of the Cold War, Russia is a minor player again.

Immigrants are the new scapegoats for fascists and semi-fascists in Western Europe, but in Russia and Eastern Europe immigration is less of a target for hate because there are much fewer immigrants to begin with. Instead, various minority groups are the primary targets. And Russia has plenty of minority groups, which gives Russian fascists plenty of scapegoats to choose from. As far as I know, besides Jews, they also particularly hate people from the Caucasus region.

But as Tatar_Khan also pointed out, the fact that Russia is such a large and ethnically diverse country is also a major stumbling block for fascists. In many regions, particularly in the North Caucasus and east of the Urals, the minority groups are strong enough to fight back. I haven't heard of any fascist incidents there (but it may be just because you never hear much news of any kind from Siberia).

But going back to your post, Caid, I take exception to this:

On the other hand, young nazi movements have a positive side too, they are usually opposed to drug abuse, work hard, have a sense of law in most areas but violence. Also the nazi ideology reflects only in symbols and music. In a country with such terrible demographics it can only help, if held in limits.

Are you out of your bloody mind? "Young nazi movements" beat people up for having the wrong skin colour or nationality, or for being gay or part of a left-wing political group. "Young nazi movements" attack and burn buildings that serve as cultural centres for the ethnic groups they hate (e.g. mosques, synagogues), or belong to left-wing organizations. They are violent, intolerant, and murderous. And that's just what they do when they don't have any political power.

Granted, it's true that they are usually opposed to drug abuse. That's not much comfort when they're terrorizing innocent people, though. And yes, they obey the law in most areas except for the most important one - violence. They won't step on the grass in public parks, but they might kill you.

[Caid Ivik]

Why is it so that Russian ideologians are appealing to panslavic and other nationalist sentiments in the times of their greatness? I find the need for revanche/renaissance, connected with the Weimar culture, to be something very different, if not contradicting. Also, under Putin Russia went to a quite successful period as well, in comparision to the Jelcin's decade. That's my opinion about the historical generalizations, now the actual...

In the west, minorities are taken as targets not only by fascist underground, but even by generally accepted politicians - be it Berlusconi regime, austrian FPO, or fortuynists in Netherlands. Not to talk of Kosovo, where nationalists with serbian blood on their hands were supported by the west in their declaration of independence. And because they use legal methods, we tolerate that, pointing fingers to the criminals, to realm of police. Violence is a bad thing, yes, but the point of prevention shouldn't be the prohibit small bands of drunken bar-brawlers to bear "neo-nazi" insignia, but to not start any fight at all. I know a lot of nazis who had never engaged in a fight; as well as a few leftist activists, who seek and beat neo-nazis just because of their opinion. And of course it is vice-versa; violence reflects balls, sit venia verbo, not opinions.

So what, they try to look as nazis? Ok. They beat someone? Punish them. What's the difference when they beat someone and try to look as nazis (or communists, or emos, or clowns, or angels, or whatever) at once?

[Edric O]

Why is it so that Russian ideologians are appealing to panslavic and other nationalist sentiments in the times of their greatness?

Well, that was in the 19th century, when every major power - and most smaller countries, too - strongly appealed to nationalism. Besides, not all nationalism is fascist nationalism. Fascist nationalism is about restoring wounded pride, recovering lost glory, taking vengeance for an unfair defeat. Like you said, it's about the desire for a revanche or a national renaissance. Other types of nationalism are different. Pan-slavic nationalism, for example, had nothing to do with a national renaissance or recovering lost glory.

I find the need for revanche/renaissance, connected with the Weimar culture, to be something very different, if not contradicting.

Well, there is a similar trend in Russia to think about vengeance or payback for losing the Cold War.

Also, under Putin Russia went to a quite successful period as well, in comparision to the Jelcin's decade.

True, the Putin regime is successful, which is why it has a strong grip on power. For now...

In the west, minorities are taken as targets not only by fascist underground, but even by generally accepted politicians - be it Berlusconi regime, austrian FPO, or fortuynists in Netherlands.

The Austrian Freedom Party (FPO) has real nazi roots, and Berlusconi's current political party, Popolo della Libert

[Caid Ivik]

Russia lost the Cold War? Was Cold War a war? Its economics were going rapidly down from the beginning of the 80s and everybody was aware that it was never as productive as that of eg USA. Panslavism, on the other hand, is a sentiment which really led them into many conflicts, which served as a justification for them. It needs some deeper mythical thinking than primitive german revanchism, but why do we need to categorize it? People can always make a reason for their unreasonable acts.

To the other thing, it seems to me you don't think faith can be separated from acts, well I do. I have an opinion that the division of Czechoslovakia wasn't a good idea, and yet I'm performing no activities which would reflect it, which would somehow lead to rejoice. There are various people, I don't know why should I bother with those who aren't in power.

[MrFlibble]

Caid, one of the recent terrorist acts by a group of neo-nazis, a bombing of Cherkhizovsky market in Moscow, resulted in deaths of 20 innocent people, including two kids. And another story I remember well was when a group of nazi youths killed a teen Tajik girl in St. Petersburg. And there are more examples of "people from Caucasus", as well as Russian anti-fascists being killed by neo-nazis. Believe me, there's nothing good or beneficial about it.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I have to admit that's a pretty hard line...

[SWkwisatz]

So what, they try to look as nazis? Ok. They beat someone? Punish them. What's the difference when they beat someone and try to look as nazis (or communists, or emos, or clowns, or angels, or whatever) at once?

Personally I find it a bit terrifying that you reduce the Nazi ideology to a comparison between Nazis and Emo

[Caid Ivik]

Do you think the evaluation of ideologies depends on mere "good taste"? Well, why not, I wouldn't be against the saying that Nazis were just hearing too much Wagner. But that wasn't the point: it was that even if they were killing only for this Wagner, it would be on the same level as if they killed for, let's say, Mein Kampf. It is equal to the victims.

[SWkwisatz]

Do you think the evaluation of ideologies depends on mere "good taste"?

Mere good taste? I think science has proven pretty well that there are no races within the human race, so no I wouldn

[Caid Ivik]

For the first point, even marxism is logically incoherent and contradictory with nature of things, and yet it has many followers around the world. Science has proven it "wrong", but they don't care, because it is their way of thinking, their worldview. You can't always take objective reasons to fight against subjective opinions. Remember this when you'll be arguing with your girlfriend next time. Sometimes people prefer feelings and don't think of details: they are mesmerized by swastikas and rushing tanks, but still may not think of racial theories.

The second point may be answered so as well. Define "madness". If the society would protect madmen in way that they can kill anybody without being considered responsible, I would see it as a very dangerous ideology as well. A problem comes only when we put on a dualism: either make madmen free or restrain them. The same was in the Hitler's (and Cold War) era: either you're with us or against us. This we have to overcome, not particular reasons to kill. People can find a reason for aggression anywhere, if not nazism they would fight for their football club, or, hell, for FED2k. If we had a problem with provider and I killed him after a long discussion about it on PRP, it would still be ridiculous then, to shut the site down.

[Edric O]

For the first point, even marxism is logically incoherent and contradictory with nature of things, and yet it has many followers around the world.

Oh really? Which parts of Marxism are you talking about, exactly? What precisely does Marxism say that is "incoherent" or "contradictory with nature of things"?

Science has proven it "wrong", but they don't care, because it is their way of thinking, their worldview.

Which science has proven what to be wrong about Marxism? The last time I checked, Marxism made no claims about hard science. It only makes claims about social science, which is a far more controversial field.

Nazi racial theories, on the other hand, DO make claims about hard science - specifically biology. These claims have been proven wrong thanks to the development of the science of biology and our modern knowledge of the human genome. Genetically, biologically, human races do not exist. Humans are different, but differences in skin colour or facial features do not correspond to any meaningful differences in other areas. If you really wanted to divide the human species into "races," there would be about 10 different "races" in Africa, and one "race" for the entire rest of the world. Germans and Jews are far more similar genetically than, for example, Nigerians and Ethiopians.

Nazism is based on false views about human biology. Other ideologies, however - including Marxism but also liberalism, for example - make no claims at all about biology, or any other hard science. Therefore they cannot be disproved by hard science. They might theoretically be disproved by social science, but social science can rarely prove or disprove anything with any degree of certainty. The physical universe is deterministic. Human behaviour, as far as we can tell, is not.

You can't always take objective reasons to fight against subjective opinions.

Sure you can. Not always, but sometimes. Sometimes objective reasons can prove or disprove subjective opinions. Other times they can't.

In the case of Nazism, their subjective opinions on race have been objectively disproven. Of course you can't objectively "prove" that swastikas or rushing tanks are not cool, but that is not an essential part of Nazism. The essential beliefs of Nazism are (1) that humans can be divided into races, and the Aryan race is the natural master race, and (2) that there is an evil Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. That's pretty much it.

The second point may be answered so as well. Define "madness". If the society would protect madmen in way that they can kill anybody without being considered responsible, I would see it as a very dangerous ideology as well. A problem comes only when we put on a dualism: either make madmen free or restrain them. The same was in the Hitler's (and Cold War) era: either you're with us or against us. This we have to overcome, not particular reasons to kill. People can find a reason for aggression anywhere, if not nazism they would fight for their football club, or, hell, for FED2k. If we had a problem with provider and I killed him after a long discussion about it on PRP, it would still be ridiculous then, to shut the site down.

What do you mean by "overcome"? Should we make certain ideas illegal, or ban certain ideologies because they might cause people to become violent? No, never. Like you said, people can become violent for any reason, and in any case the history of totalitarian societies has proven that, contrary to what George Orwell believed, you can't force people to love you - you can't even force them to stop hating you if they feel strongly about it.

However, should we try to "overcome" evil ideas or ideologies by other means? Yes, certainly. The choice is not between shooting a Nazi or giving him a big warm hug. We should not make Nazi ideas illegal, because we should not make any ideas illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to be nice to the bastards. We must argue against Nazism at every turn and point out how and why it is wrong, evil, and dangerous. In every political or social arena - in election campaigns, public rallies, political or philosophical debates or books - we must not compromise an inch with Nazis or fascists, and we must fight them relentlessly. Let them speak freely, but then afterwards let us speak freely as well, so we can pound their nonsense into dust.

[Caid Ivik]

Logic is a "hard" science and the dialectical calculus contradicts basic rules. And also it was an attempt to incorporate sociology into the "hard science" as well. The point of both was, however, not to bring a scientific hypothesis, but to improve the position of the workers. In fact, such agenda doesn't need science at all! Because the nazi idea of racial purity of a nation (let's say that german nazism isn't the only possible form) or present ideology of sustainable progress are goals, not discoveries. The theories of dialectic materialism (or eugenics/economy theories) were made in order to 1.find means for the agenda and 2.justify it. But the core is subjective.

"Overcoming" of ideas is made only by individual reasoning. There is no need for bans and fights. If you want to change others, bring better idea or shoot them...but in the end you're on your own.

[SWkwisatz]

Sometimes people prefer feelings and don't think of details: they are mesmerized by swastikas and rushing tanks, but still may not think of racial theories.

Ahhhh yeees, the good old days when we had a sweet combination of swastikas, war, death, rushing tanks, pain, sorrow and ethnic cleansing. What is it to be mesmerized about? And don

[Caid Ivik]

Symbols you use can be used with many things. Swastika may denote the sun; or word "wan", for a Chinese. Rushing tanks have different conotations for an arms seller, for the rider, for its victim, for a general, for an ideologist. And similarly, the dualist battlecry "either us or against us" can be connected to any ideology as well: aryans vs unpure, Romans vs barbarians, jews vs gojim, Slavs vs Germans, sane vs insane, worker vs capitalist...fantasy has no limits. It has been here long before nazis.

[Purge]

The plural word goyim simply means "nations", the singular goy means "nation".

[SWkwisatz]

Symbols you use can be used with many things. Swastika may denote the sun; or word "wan", for a Chinese. Rushing tanks have different conotations for an arms seller, for the rider, for its victim, for a general, for an ideologist. And similarly, the dualist battlecry "either us or against us" can be connected to any ideology as well: aryans vs unpure, Romans vs barbarians, jews vs gojim, Slavs vs Germans, sane vs insane, worker vs capitalist...fantasy has no limits. It has been here long before nazis.

Caid, please let

[Caid Ivik]

My point was to break the connection between these symbols. I don't think that when I speak about a tank I am meaning something nazi. It isn't a part of the essence of nazism, but rather just an ingredient. When we focus on symbols instead of going to the core of the object (ie the ideology), then what are we working on? That's kabala, not an analysis. It's like policemen hunt neonazis for wearing swastikas, but then have no problem voting for a xenophobiac politician. Some serious parts of the nazi ideology may have survived within the present pluralistic political scene, but are they ok, because they aren't clothed in nazi symbolics? Such questions can't be reduced to talk about swastikas and variety of causes for violence.

[Edric O]

My point was to break the connection between these symbols. I don't think that when I speak about a tank I am meaning something nazi. It isn't a part of the essence of nazism, but rather just an ingredient.

True, a tank is not inherently nazi by any means. A swastika by itself isn't necessarily nazi either (although in Western cultures nowadays there's a taboo on the use of the swastika in non-nazi contexts).

But a tank AND a swastika, together? That's almost certainly nazi.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, for me it is WW2 or Wehrmacht (although even that isn't clear, as Finns useda blue swastika on their warplanes too - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Fokker_D.XXI.jpg ), not every adult German man was a nazi but most of them had to ride such ones. Similarly, not every Red Army soldier was a communist.

[Edric O]

More news of rising ultra-nationalism in Russia:

"For faith, tsar, and fatherland!"

A gang of teenage skinheads are on trial for TWENTY racist murders, and 12 attempted murders... How exactly were they able to commit 20 murders before being caught?

[Dunenewt]

I can't believe I've never noticed this topic before.  I can't see the far right ever taking power in Russia, Putin's grip is far too strong.  These neo-Nazis will just be used by the Government though, for its own purposes.  The Russian Federation is on its way to becoming a great power again.