America's Winner's Complex

[monk222]

♠
“Americans have a severe disease — worse than AIDS. It's called the winner's complex. You want an American style-democracy here. That will not work.”

-- Mikhail Gorbachev

Yeah, well, Russians seem to have a fatal disease of their own: Totalitarianitis - the easy susceptibility to totalitarianism.

It is noted in this Claire Shipman report for ABC News that Mr. Gorbachev does criticize President Vladimir Putin as well, but one supposes that it behooves one to only do so very gingerly. At least Gorbachev is not trying to sell the line that Russia has achieved democratic self-governance, but he is not very convincing when he says:

"Vladimir Putin is walking on a razor's edge. Putin has used and he will continue to use authoritarian measures, but Russia will form a democracy. I know Vladimir Putin. He is a moral person."

It is a sweet thought, but I think they can use a little more of this American disease.

xXx

Comments

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

The thing with Russia is that they've had thousands of years of pretty much unremittingly awful history. Right from the start, they had to contend with the fact that the bits of the country with decent soil had terrible weather and vice versa. Then they were overrun by the Mongols, who were not exactly known for their gentleness or tolerance. Then the tsars gradually managed to gain enough power to take over from the Mongols, and they were no better; there was never any concept of the state in Russia, as there was elsewhere. The tsars ruled on a patrimonial basis, in exactly the same way as a head of household - everyone in the realm was under the tsar's personal jurisdiction, and the tsar ran the country for his (or her) own profit. Because that's how the tsars ruled, there was never a separate landed aristocracy who could become strong enough to challenge the tsar's excesses, as there was in, say, England; anything like the Magna Carta would have been unthinkable in Russia. I could go into more detail about exactly how the Russian aristocracy, such as it was, did work, but that would be too long for a comment here.

By the time the Revolution came along, there was very little real support for it among the peasants, basically because by that stage they'd nearly all become so cynical that they couldn't see it doing any good. The revolutionaries were trying to establish a communist state; I would argue that they never succeeded, because communism only ever works if everyone agrees to it, and that never happened. Of course they called it communism anyway, and that's what gave communism such a bad name. (For an instance of real communism in action, see the Acts of the Apostles!) But the peasants just took advantage of the mayhem to riot pretty much randomly and anarchically. They weren't interested in communism; they were just fed up with being pushed around by petty officials. Interestingly, many of them saw the tsar himself as a source of order, and thought that if he only knew how the officials were treating them, he would intervene on their behalf.

So the revolutionaries had to come down pretty hard on the peasants to prevent total chaos, because they hadn't realised what they would be unleashing. This was, of course, tough on the peasants, but then life had been tough on the peasants since times immemorial, and it hadn't exactly been a bunch of roses for anyone else either, except the tsar.

On the whole, I think they're not doing too badly these days, all things considered.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

So, this Totalitarianitis is a congenital defect? I just hope we can come up with a cure. I'm afraid Putin-ism is a course of therapy that is liable to induce a full relapse.

Impressive as always, Miss Next. :)

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure we Americans don't have an authoritarian streak in us these days either.

But again, I think there is the combination here of history and the fact that we maybe can't expect to "spread" democracy all over the world as, well, it isn't necessarily the thing for everyone. To each their own. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst govt. there is except for all the others.

There is a certain multiculturalism at play here, too. The US seems to have the mantra that apart from being a good example and passively encouraging democracy around the world we also have an active duty to go futher than promoting into the territory of meddling. People don't like others sticking their noses in business it doesn't belong in.

That comes, to the rest of the world, dangerously close to old-style imperialism where we've taken the White Man's Burden thing and adapted it to the 21st century postmodern world. Some of our issues to be worked out for the future include learning to respect that our way of being in the world is but one. Here is where the fundamentalism spills over...there are those who understand that peoples take a variety of paths in life and those who feel everyone should take the same or a similar one. The seems to be shaping into *the* sociopolitical drama.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Yes, I imagine we would be content to leave others to their own path, except that in their ensuing misery they feel moved to spread their misery to us, which makes it more our business how other societies are governed. I don't know how moral it is to accept tyranny for other peoples, when I'm sure you would not care for it yourself. Isolationism is not the answer, where we only shrink into being a passive example, when you have violent psychotics looking to destroy your way of life. We are not seeking to impose specific dogmas such as those found in fundamentalist religions, but only looking to allow peoples to know the freedom that you know, so that they may decide their paths, trying to put the radical militants out of business.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

There is no doubt that the misery of others, which then comes back to us in the form of their fundamentalism, is a problem. The question is how to best allow others to have cultural "home rule" while taking care to watch our backs.

I would not care for tyranny myself, but it is the moral duty of a people to throw off that yoke themselves, I think, as I have said before.

I think in seeking not to "impose specific dogmas" we have to be sure that itself doesn't become a dogma. Doing all we can to assist is one thing...but it has to be an assist when asked and necessary. Which is the difficult line the civilized world is still trying to find...between isolation and meddling there is a helpful middle ground that has yet to be found.

To me, it goes back to "watching our backs." My personal philosophy would be a superior defense and a capable offense tamed by a sense of decorum and restraint. Propriety. In this world, you catch more flies with honey and our best protection in the long run may be the simple example of being a nation-state that acts responsibly towards its own citizens and others.

That is where we are so far off track as a country....

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Under normal social circumstances, I could see the time-proven wisdom that you catch more flies with honey, but these are not normal circumstances. I'm afraid that in showing passivity, they will only see weakness and be encouraged to attack. They will laugh at your good example and behead hostages without regard to the Geneva conventions.

An historical example of this is when President Reagan called in the troops from Beirun when the marine barracks was hit, killing perhaps hundreds of soldiers. It is known that Osama took this as a clear indication that America is but a paper tiger and ripe for attack.

That there is no known simple answer to this conflict is something we can agree on.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

That is precisely what is our undoing right now though...it really is normal circumstances. That we pretend there is a "war on terror," etc., is playing into the hands of those who, well, want war. To not play the game is the only way to win. I mean, no matter how we slice it we sort of do end up a paper tiger. We've now been in two theatres and are spread so thin militarily that we could not possibly execute a another fullscale operation. Our response has, in many ways, made us more vulnerable. We're not talking rolling over for onslaught from other cultures and nations here, however...that is what the reactionaries and warmongers would have us believe. We're just talking good security and good foreign policies.

Easier said than done, of course. Look at the Israeli situation. A good dose of security and good foreign policy could ease tensions and create lasting peace over there. I refuse to believe that the only solution to international relations is perpetual conflict and justifying human suffering. To me, playing into that state of affairs is tyranny itself from which freedom-loving human beings should try to advance forward. Substituting for the lesser of two evils...two wrongs don't make a right, etc..

Anyway, g'night. At least I have something to chew on during the long car ride now.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Have fun in Chicago, dude!