I'm not going to respond to the sarcasm. I'm also not really that interested in parsing the exact meaning of a rather ambiguous post from Chris. I read it as saying, OK, whatever the central govt in Russia is doing, it's not oppressive because the Russians consent to it. Hence the happy slaves problem (sorry, Carrol, that's the terminology in the debate, you don't like it, write Don Herzog at the U of M law school, and I am not going to get into a stupid body count debate about whether bourgeois democracy is the worst of all possible forms of government). You read the post as saying, the central govt in Russia has actually made people more free and enhanced liberty, reducing oppression. Maybe Chris meant that. I don't think so, based on my secret past interaction, which I concealed from you to confuse matters, but be that as it may. I will tell you how I see thing things:
Under Yeltsin Russia faced economic collapse (well advanced under Gorbachev), klepotocracy, anarchy (in the bad sense), and repression.
Under Putin, Russia has seen economic recovery, of a sort, what sort we have been debating, klepotocracy, authoritarianism, and repression.
People can argue about whether anarchy is worse than authoritarianism. Because I have a Hobbesian streak, I agree with Chris that anarchic repression under Yeltsin was worse than authoritarian repression under Putin.
There is little dispute that Putin's government is repressive and authoritarian. There is some dispute about the nature of the kleptocracy and the source of the Russian economy recovery.
Chris puts a lot of weight on the fact that Putin is very popular, probably the most popular leader in the world. This is the issue I was focusing on. What does that popularity show? What does it mean for us or for Russia that Putin and his policies are enthusiastically received? In particular does it legitimate these policies?
There is no easy answer. To a certain extent, anyone who believes in the consent of the governed must concede that it counts in favor of Putin and his policies. But raw consent does not settle the matter, or we;' have to concede that Hitler and Stalin, both of whom were very popular while they were winning, were legitimate too. I underline that I do not put Putin in their league.
The point is that mere consent only goes so far. At the same time we must be very cautious about discounting the popular will. However, unless we are willing to give up radical projects, as Chris and Yoshie are willing to do for Russia and Iran but not, it seems, for the US,w here there ideas have even less purchase than they do in Iran or Russia, we cannot say that consent trumps.
--- tfast <tfast at yorku.ca> wrote:
> Silly me I was going by the text of his that you
> quoted and not by the text
> of a previous post from a past interaction you did
> not cite. Let me be
> precise
>
> Doss wrote:
>
> "See, you might have a problem here. Russians do not
> feel oppressed by the
> federal government. They feel oppressed by the stuff
> they actually encounter
> in their lives, which is corrupt police, courts, and
> regional governments
> and crime (the latter often linked to the former). A
> point I have made again
> and again, but which has apparently not sunk in, is
> that Russians,
> especially in the provinces, suffer from the
> WEAKNESS of the federal center,
> not its overweaning strength."
>
> However one characterizes: Putin strong man or not
> (I am not sure that is
> really a very useful analytical term), Chris seems
> to be arguing that it is
> Putin's strength which has *improved the freedom*
> (positive and negative) of
> most Russians sans perhaps the oligarchs, corrupt
> regional elites and dirty
> cops. You shifted the debate to does consent
> legitimate oppression which
> implies among other things that Putin is oppressive
> for most Russians. I am
> not in a position to either affirm or reject Doss'
> claims I simply do not
> have enough information.
>
> On the question of whether peoples
> consent/acquiescence to oppression
> legitimates it? My answer is no. But if most social
> orders are characterized
> by a degree of oppression and /consent I am not sure
> how useful of question
> this is outside of an abstract (as in general)
> setting. In which case the
> thread needs an new name. I have taken that
> liberty. Should I construe any
> response from you as consent?
>
> ____________________________________
> Travis W Fast
>
>
> >
> > No, Chris admitted, maybe in a side post to me,
> that
> > Putin was a classic Russian strongman and that was
> > what was necessary nowadays. So maybe the issue is
> > whether that Russians are _unnecessarily_
> oppressed,
> > but Chris has stipulated by implication that they
> are
> > oppressed, if maybe less than under Yeltsin and in
> any
> > event happily. Anyway, when Christ raises the
> issue,
> > and it is a hard one, that the Russians (or
> anyone)
> > consents to what from a socialist pov looks like
> > oppression, the happy slaves problem arises. Does
> > consent legitimate all things?
> >
> > --- tfast <tfast at yorku.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > >Timberlake writes
> > > > So, you come down on the "revealed consent"
> side
> > > of
> > > > what my old teacher Don Herzog calls the
> problem
> > > of
> > > > happy slaves. If the oppressed are cool with
> their
> > > > subordination, all is OK, God's in his heaven,
> > > all's
> > > > right with the world. Tolstoi deals with this
> > > issue in
> > > > Resurrection, in which the idealistic young
> > > landowner
> > > > tries to give his estate to a hostile and
> > > reluctant
> > > > peasantry who just want to go on serving a
> strong,
> > > > harsh master like it always did before.
> > >
> > > But! Chris seemed to be arguing that Russians
> were
> > > *not* oppressed by the
> > > state. He did not write that they were happy in
> > > their subjugation, rather
> > > he wrote that they were not subjugated. Chris'
> > > claim is not that Putin is
> > > perfect but that compared to what existed pre
> putin
> > > Russians are actually
> > > more free. You have shifted the terms of the
> > > dispute from the degree of
> > > oppression to whether or not Russians accept
> their
> > > oppression.
> > >
> > > Travis
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Oh yeah, one other point I meant to make:
> > > > > --- James Heartfield
> > > <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "As socialists we are not supposed to like
> a
> > > > > > politically authoritarian,
> > > > > > kleptocratic, wildly inegalitarian
> capitalist
> > > > > system
> > > > > > that substitutes
> > > > > > arbitrary force force for reliable rule of
> law
> > > and
> > > > > > accords working people
> > > > > > some goodies but no power."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, ok, but let's not the wish be father
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > thought. If this
> > > > > > dictatorial government is growing the
> economy
> > > it
> > > > > > seems silly to criticise it
> > > > > > for not doing so when what you actually
> want
> > > to do
> > > > > > is criticise it for
> > > > > > oppressing the people.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See, you might have a problem here. Russians
> do
> > > not
> > > > > feel oppressed by the federal government.
> They
> > > feel
> > > > > oppressed by the stuff they actually
> encounter
> > > in
> > > > > their lives, which is corrupt police,
> courts,
> > > and
> > > > > regional governments and crime (the latter
> often
> > > > > linked to the former). A point I have made
> again
> > > and
> > > > > again, but which has apparently not sunk in,
> is
> > > that
> > > > > Russians, especially in the provinces,
> suffer
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > WEAKNESS of the federal center, not its
> > > overweaning
> > > > > strength. Accordingly, they favor its being
> > > > > strengthened and the regional powers being
> > > weakened,
> > > > > which is why most people supported the
> abolition
> > > of
> > > > > direct elections of governors. Why? BECAUSE
> > > THERE
> > > > > WERE
> > > > > NO ACTUAL ELECTIONS OF GOVERNORS. The
> President
> > > of
> > > > > Tatarstan was "reelected" with something
> like
> > > 98% of
> > > > > the vote. Kalmykia is much the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyubo, bratsy, lyubo, lyubo, bratsy, zhit!
> > > > >
> > > > > ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ËÞÁÎ, ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ÆÈÒÜ!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com