Anonymous Letters of Exiled (Or Imprisoned) Russian Anarchists, Published Outside Russia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Great Power Competition: the Changing Landscape of Global
Chapter 1 Russia’s Soft Power Projection in the Middle East Anna L. Borshchevskaya Political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr. defined soft power as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attraction of the country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced.”1 For a state to be successful, according to Nye, hard power is necessary; but it is also important to shape long-term preferences of others and project values. Soft power projection helps at- tract partners and allies.2 Historically, the Kremlin always emphasized hard power. During the Soviet era, the following phrase encapsulated so many aspects of Soviet life it became a trope: “If you don’t know, we will teach you; if you don’t want to, we will force you.”3 In more recent history, Moscow has focused on hard power projection; the brutal suppression of Chechnya’s struggle for independence, the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, and the 2015 military intervention in Syria to save Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad all highlight Moscow’s preference for hard power. Indeed, in private conversations, Western policymakers often argue that Russia has no power to attract. The Kremlin has yet to treat its own citizens well—let alone those of other countries. An oft-cited exam- ple of Moscow’s inability to attract is that generally people do not dream of immigrating to Russia; rather, they tend to dream of immigrating from Russia to developed democracies, contributing to Russia’s brain drain. -
Evolution and Transformation of the Soviet Elite*
Evolution and transformation of the Soviet elite* Valery Lazarev Department of Economics, University of Houston, and the Hoover Institution E-mail: [email protected] Draft: April, 10, 2001 Introduction Radical social transformations are often represented as sets of policies that are consciously designed and implemented by selfless, benevolent - although probably ideologically biased - “experimenters.” Hence, titles of numerous books and papers referring to either “Soviet socialist experiment” or “Russia’s capitalist experiment.”1 The main problem of transition is, therefore, to design an optimal path from one sets of institutional arrangements to another, given the structural gap between the two. Under this approach, institutional elements are a passive material of social construction - or destruction - and the studies in institutional inheritance have no relevance. This is arguably not true even in the context of the most abrupt revolutionary change. Institutions do not exist per se, they are borne by people, economic - or in a broader setting, political-economic - agents who are selfish and rational. Whatever changes they opt to go for, they do it not for the love of abstract enlightened policies but to maximize their own objective functions. In addition, these agents are boundedly rational: their ability to collect and process information, i.e. to solve problems, is limited, and so is their possible speed of adaptation to new conditions. They acquire social and human capital – skills, beliefs, and patterns of behavior, as well as identity and reputation – through a lengthy process of socialization under “ancienne regime.” They bring this luggage into the brave new world, even if they arrive into it in a revolutionary-romantic manner, on a top of tank. -
"Whacked but Not Forgotten": Burying the Mob
"WHACKED BUT NOT FORGOTTEN": BURYING THE MOB Olga Matich Post-Soviet human rights activists, journalists, and scholars have been actively engaged in the memorialization of the victims of the Great Terror and Great War. One of the most publicized aspects of their project is the recovery of the victims' unmarked mass graves. The goal is to commemorate the massive loss of life in the Soviet Union by creating a "biographical dictionary" of the victims of Stalinist violence. What Viktor Iofe, the head of the Petersurg branch of Memorial, calls "the right to a name."1 This project focusses on the violent excesses of the Stalinist past erased from public life. In a broader cultural context, the project can be seen in terms of Russia's historical paradigm of rupture, according to which society erases the past in key historical moments, a past that is reclaimed and celebrated later. This paradigm historicizes the religious model of death and resurrection. Post-Soviet life of the 1990s remains violent, but instead of the state, the perpetrators of violence are members of the business underworld, what has become known as the Russian mafia. Instead of political terror, Russians are haunted by Hollywood-style gang slayings - razborki - which Russian and foreign journalists have given ample press.2 I 1. From talk by Viktor Iofe at Berkeley in December 1997. The sepulchral biographical dictionary contains the names, dates, and other distinguishing features of the deceased. In the study of death, the term "necropolis" refers to a complete list of those buried in a particular cemetery. In smaller towns, and villages, the list provides a genealogy of those who lived and died there. -
Russian Collectivism: an Invisible Fist in the Transformation Process Of
OP97.O8 RUSSIAN COLLECTIVISM AN INVISIBLE FIST IN THE TRANSFORMATION PROCESS OF RUSSIA (Astract) by Dr. Charalambos Vlachoutsicos1 The Russian collectivist value system (RCVS) is an enduring feature of Russian life which predates Communism and which persists as a potent social force in the post- Communist era. Being dynamic, the RCVS has adapted to the different threats and opportunities Russia has faced over the centuries. Nevertheless, the RCVS constitutes a coherent pattern of values and prescriptions for behaviour, its roots dating back to the Kievan state which arose in the ninth century. Muscovite Russia has inherited autocratic and democratic elements, which existed in the Kievan office of the prince, the duma or council of boyars, the veche or town assembly, and in the mir or medieval village commune. By necessity, the group took priority over the individual and the culture was marked by extreme conservatism, risk avoidance and a strong tendency to maintain stability. On the other hand, each individual was necessary for the survival of the group. Therefore the community had to strive to balance the interests of all its members. It is important to note that the same adverse conditions which made communitarianism essential to the viability of the village made centralism essential to the survival of the state. Thus an apparently contradictory and unique combination of suppression of the individual on the one hand and considerable freedom of self-expression on the other evolved as a focal distinctive feature of Russian culture. It follows that the code as well as the stubborn resilience of RCVS are invariably confusing to Westerners. -
Kinotavr Рѕрє-2Var.Qxd
ƒÓÓ„Ë ‰ÛÁ¸ˇ! Dear friends! ŒÚ ËÏÂÌË ÃËÌËÒÚÂÒÚ‚‡ ÍÛθÚÛ˚ Ë Ï‡ÒÒÓ‚˚ı On behalf of the Ministry of Culture and Mass ÍÓÏÏÛÌË͇ˆËÈ –ÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ ‘‰‡ˆËË Ò‰˜ÌÓ Communications of the Russian Federation ÔË‚ÂÚÒÚ‚Û˛ ÍÓÌÍÛÒ‡ÌÚÓ‚ Ë „ÓÒÚÂÈ XVII I warmly welcome the competitors and visitors of ŒÚÍ˚ÚÓ„Ó ÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓ„Ó ÍËÌÓÙÂÒÚË‚‡Îˇ the 17th Open Russian Film Festival ìKinotavrî. ´üËÌÓÚ‡‚ª! For the seventeenth time a creative competition ¬ ÒÂÏ̇‰ˆ‡Ú˚È ‡Á ‚ „ÓӉ —Ó˜Ë ÒÓÒÚÓËÚÒˇ will be held in Sochi, a competition among the Ú‚Ó˜ÂÒÍÓ ÒÓÒÚˇÁ‡ÌË ÎÛ˜¯Ëı Ô‰ÒÚ‡‚ËÚÂÎÂÈ strongest representatives of Russian cinema, ÓÚ˜ÂÒÚ‚ÂÌÌÓ„Ó ÍËÌÂχÚÓ„‡Ù‡, ‚ ÍÓÚÓÓÏ Ì‡ where award-winning and established directors ‡‚Ì˚ı ·Û‰ÛÚ Û˜‡ÒÚ‚Ó‚‡Ú¸ Í‡Í ÔËÁ̇ÌÌ˚Â, will compete on a par with debutants. They are ÚËÚÛÎÓ‚‡ÌÌ˚ ÂÊËÒÒÂ˚, Ú‡Í Ë ‰Â·˛Ú‡ÌÚ˚. united by their love of cinema, their talent and ¬ÒÂı Ëı Ó·˙‰ËÌˇÂÚ Î˛·Ó‚¸ Í ÍËÌÓ, ڇ·ÌÚ Ë their desire to share this with the audience. Ê·ÌË ÔÓ‰ÂÎËÚ¸Òˇ ˝ÚËÏ ÒÓ ÁËÚÂΡÏË. It is in many respects thanks to ìKinotavrî that ¬Ó ÏÌÓ„ÓÏ ·Î‡„Ó‰‡ˇ ´üËÌÓÚ‡‚Ûª ÓÒÒËÈÒÍËÈ Russian cinema continues to be full of creativity, ÍËÌÂχÚÓ„‡Ù ÔÓ‰ÓÎʇÂÚ ÊËÚ¸ ‡ÍÚË‚ÌÓÈ to develop, and to discover new names. I am Ú‚Ó˜ÂÒÍÓÈ ÊËÁ̸˛, ‡Á‚Ë‚‡Ú¸Òˇ Ë ÓÚÍ˚‚‡Ú¸ confident that this year, too, there will be many ÌÓ‚˚ ËÏÂ̇.