THE SHADOWS OF NEW RUSSIA
The London Review of Books has a piece up by Perry Anderson, entitled “Russia’s Managed Democracy“. It is overly long and meandering, the author, as he is a liberal academic, gives short shrift to the danger posed by revanchist Communists during Yeltsin’s first term. He’s either clearly misinformed or unwilling to deal with that political complexity because it would disturb the grinding of cherished axes.
Nevertheless, if you graze through this essay, you will find good nuggets because the author’s contemporary analysis is backed by a deep comprehension of Russian history and culture. For example:
“The intelligence [of Putin] is limited and cynical, above the level of his Anglo-American counterparts, but without much greater ambition. It has been enough, however, to give Putin half of his brittle lustre in Russia. There, an apparent union of fist and mind has captured the popular imaginary.”
A phrase that makes a great deal of sense if you are familiar with the respective roles of the intelligentsia and state in the Russian cultural sphere for the last century and a half.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
A phrase that makes a great deal of sense if you are familiar with the respective roles of the intelligentsia and state in the Russian cultural sphere for the last century and a half.
Hey Mark,
If you have the time, could you elaborate on this?
January 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Hi Phil,
I’ll try to expand on it late tonight.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:02 am
I saw that article and it was way too longwinded and ideological.
Putin does seem to be in the tradition of Russian autocrats. However, if he steps down on schedule, that in itself will be progress for Russia. I hope he does.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Hi Lex,
As it was LBR, it was very windy and ideological – I agree. If I had more time these days, I’d fisk it hard but I so rarely see Russia pieces where the author knows what he’s talking about that I didn’t mind too much.
I’m not sure how Chicago’s history department was way back when you were there, but my recollection was most Soviet scholars back in the mid/late-80’s (excepting folks like Richard Pipes, Adam Ulam and so on) were cut from the same cloth. I’m kind of used to it.
Phil-
Briefly:
Russia’s intelligentsia grew from an artificial root. While Peter imported Western technology and transformed Russia from a patrilonial, oriental, despotism to a country with a state (albeit one rooted in absolutism), Catherine imported French intellectualism.
This Enlightenment Westernization took root in a very superficial way as Orthodox boyars and dvoraine (state officials who became equivalent of British life peers) aped what the Tsarina desired without really understanding it.
This tiny class of intellectual people became permanent critics of the state without power, influence, or responsibility facing off against a ponderous Russian state whose officialdom was often as brutal as they were half-educated. Nor did they have anything in common with the muzhiks, the ” dark people”, the millions of serfs who formed 95 % + of Russia’s poulation.
The great exception was the period of ” The Great Reforms” and enlightened bureaucrats from the 1840’s through the assassination of Alexander II, the Tsar-Liberator. Other than that and perhaps a few months of the Provisional government and Gorbachev’s high water mark in latye 1987, the Russian intelligentsia felt it had little in common with the ruler of the state.
January 27th, 2007 at 5:24 am
You should check out this pdf on Russia and Islam written by a British strategist.
http://cryptome.org/islam-ru.pdf
January 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Thanks, Mark. Very interesting.