In the past few days, VCIOM released the results of a large opinion poll about Russian attitudes towards the Revolution, the Civil War, and various historical figures.
The results largely speak for themselves, but to identify the most important elements:
- Soviet attitudes are dying out. While older generations are still highly “pro-Soviet” historically, attitudes amongst the young are essentially mixed (as proxied by opinions on Nicholas II vs. Lenin/Stalin, or sympathy for the Reds vs. the Whites).
This confirms my frequent observations that Russia is not an outlier insofar as younger cohorts in Eastern Europe are trending towards nationalism, and away from socialism.
- On a related note, there’s nest of sovok trolls who infest the comments hat insist that I am a marginal loser, have an Americanized mindset, etc. In reality my views are not atypical of my generation.
They would know this if they tracked opinion polls, or for that matter, lived in Russia (in reality, of course, almost none of them do, having fled “their” country as soon as if not before it collapsed).
1. What was the main cause of the Civil War?
| All polled | 18-32 years | 33-42 years | 43+ years | |
| Foreign intervention | 35% | 27% | 36% | 38% |
| Bolshevik policies | 34% | 41% | 38% | 29% |
| White resistance | 9% | 12% | 4% | 10% |
| (Incorrect) Tsarist policies | 2% | 1% | 3% | 3% |
| Impoverishment, despair | 2% | 1% | 1% | 3% |
| All the above | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| Large wealth gap | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% |
| Other | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| Hard to say | 14% | 15% | 14% | 13% |
These are all correct, to a greater or less extent. Even so, foreign intervention as a cause of the Civil War is the dominant trope of Soviet and neo-Soviet discourse on this question. The real tragedy, of course, was that the scope of said intervention was far too limited to present any danger to Bolshevik power, and was in any case rapidly withdrawn when the Whites suffered military reverses; but just sufficient for the Reds to effectively use it is a propaganda point.
This narrative is now declining. While the pseudo-patriotic option of “foreign intervention” is cited by 38% of 43+ year olds, this falls to 27% amongst the 18-32 year olds, of whom a plurality blame Bolshevik policies. Virtually nobody these days talks about classically leftist factors such as “impoverishment” or wealth gaps even amongst the boomers, which confirms Kholmogorov’s point that classical Communism is completely dead in Russia.
- Which side do you sympathize more with in the Civil War?
| All polled | 18-32 years | 33-42 years | 43+ years | |
| Sooner the Reds | 16% | 10% | 11% | 21% |
| Sooner the Whites | 7% | 11% | 8% | 5% |
| All had legitimate points | 31% | 29% | 23% | 34% |
| No relevance to today | 36% | 43% | 44% | 31% |
| Hard to say | 10% | 7% | 14% | 9% |
The vast majority of Russians remain ambivalent or disinterested on this question – much as in 1917.
Even so, amongst the “activists”, the preponderance of the Reds over the Whites decreases from 4:1 amongst the boomers to parity amongst youth.
7. What feelings do the following actors of the first half of the 20th century evoke in you?
Blue – sympathy; red – antipathy. From left to right: Nicholas II; Stalin; Lenin; Kolchak; Denikin. Via Tsargrad.
Table:
| Year | Sooner sympathy | Sooner antipathy | Hard to say | |
| Nicholas II | 2018 | 54% | 23% | 23% |
| Nicholas II | 2017 | 60% | 20% | 20% |
| Nicholas II | 2008 | 44% | 22% | 34% |
| Nicholas II | 2005 | 42% | 28% | 30% |
| Stalin | 2018 | 51% | 28% | 21% |
| Stalin | 2017 | 52% | 30% | 18% |
| Stalin | 2008 | 28% | 48% | 24% |
| Stalin | 2005 | 37% | 47% | 16% |
| Lenin | 2018 | 49% | 29% | 22% |
| Lenin | 2017 | 53% | 30% | 17% |
| Lenin | 2008 | 42% | 30% | 28% |
| Lenin | 2005 | 50% | 32% | 18% |
| Kolchak | 2018 | 36% | 29% | 35% |
| Kolchak | 2017 | 35% | 37% | 28% |
| Kolchak | 2008 | 32% | 30% | 38% |
| Kolchak | 2005 | 20% | 41% | 39% |
| Denikin | 2018 | 23% | 30% | 47% |
| Denikin | 2017 | 25% | 38% | 37% |
| Denikin | 2008 | 23% | 32% | 45% |
| Denikin | 2005 | 26% | 39% | 35% |
| Trotsky | 2018 | 20% | 46% | 34% |
| Trotsky | 2017 | 21% | 52% | 27% |
| Trotsky | 2008 | 18% | 39% | 43% |
| Trotsky | 2005 | 16% | 45% | 39% |
| Bukharin | 2018 | 18% | 26% | 56% |
| Bukharin | 2017 | 20% | 30% | 50% |
| Bukharin | 2008 | 21% | 22% | 57% |
| Bukharin | 2005 | 21% | 22% | 57% |
| Kerensky | 2018 | 11% | 46% | 43% |
| Kerensky | 2017 | 16% | 47% | 37% |
| Kerensky | 2008 | 16% | 36% | 48% |
| Kerensky | 2005 | 14% | 44% | 42% |
| Makhno | 2018 | 12% | 58% | 30% |
| Makhno | 2017 | 13% | 63% | 24% |
| Makhno | 2008 | 18% | 45% | 37% |
| Makhno | 2005 | 13% | 55% | 32% |
| Milyukov | 2018 | 7% | 23% | 70% |
| Milyukov | 2017 | 7% | 28% | 65% |
| Milyukov | 2008 | 10% | 29% | 61% |
| Milyukov | 2005 | 7% | 32% | 61% |
Essentially, we see three distinct trends over the past thirteen years:
- Stagnation in the ratings of the Communist figures (Lenin, Bukharin, Trotsky), with Lenin’s reputation remaining positive, and Trotsky’s negative. Both are, of course, a product of the Soviet religious narrative – Lenin as the founding God of the Soviet state, Trotsky as the great betrayer and universal scapegoat (even though in all fairness Lenin was consistently more extremist and maximalist than Trotsky).
-
Rehabilitation of the Whites, in particular Nicholas II (who is now viewed more sympathetically than either Lenin or Stalin), and of Kolchak though not so much Denikin (perhaps thanks to this film about The Admiral).
-
Unfortunately, also a rehabilitation of Stalin. I discussed the reasons for that here. TL;DR: Stalin “loads” on the patriotic/vatnik component (if undeservedly), not the leftist one, of the modern Russian psyche. Still, even if a bad thing, at least it happens for the right reasons.
Moreover, this is how the figures look if only the 18-32 year olds are considered in 2018 (which I extracted via the attached .sav file with all the variables).
| Sympathy | Antipathy | Hard to say | Net Sympathy | |
| Bukharin | 13% | 24% | 63% | -12% |
| Kerensky | 14% | 25% | 61% | -11% |
| Kolchak | 42% | 17% | 41% | 25% |
| Lenin | 47% | 32% | 21% | 15% |
| Makhno | 20% | 33% | 47% | -13% |
| Milyukov | 13% | 24% | 64% | -11% |
| Denikin | 19% | 19% | 62% | 0% |
| Nicholas II | 61% | 18% | 21% | 43% |
| Stalin | 55% | 27% | 18% | 28% |
| Trotsky | 31% | 36% | 34% | -5% |
Net favorability of Nicholas II climbs from 31% (vs. Stalin’s 23% and Lenin’s 20%) amongst the general population, to 43% (vs. Stalin’s 28% and Lenin’s 15%).
For comparison, here is the data for 65+ year olds:
| Sympathy | Antipathy | Hard to say | Net Sympathy | |
| Bukharin | 21% | 31% | 48% | -10% |
| Kerensky | 7% | 61% | 31% | -54% |
| Kolchak | 24% | 42% | 33% | -18% |
| Lenin | 58% | 20% | 21% | 38% |
| Makhno | 3% | 80% | 17% | -77% |
| Milyukov | 2% | 27% | 71% | -25% |
| Denikin | 20% | 40% | 40% | -20% |
| Nicholas II | 46% | 26% | 27% | 20% |
| Stalin | 53% | 21% | 26% | 31% |
| Trotsky | 14% | 49% | 36% | -35% |
Here is the net favorability of these figures across youth, the boomers, and the general population.
| 18-32 years | 33-64 years | 65+ years | All polled* | |
| Bukharin | -12% | -8% | -10% | -9% |
| Kerensky | -11% | -39% | -54% | -36% |
| Kolchak | 25% | 9% | -18% | 7% |
| Lenin | 15% | 13% | 38% | 18% |
| Makhno | -13% | -54% | -77% | -50% |
| Milyukov | -11% | -17% | -25% | -18% |
| Denikin | 0% | -5% | -20% | -7% |
| Nicholas II | 43% | 28% | 20% | 29% |
| Stalin | 28% | 16% | 31% | 21% |
| Trotsky | -5% | -34% | -35% | -28% |
-
Increase in net positive sentiments towards “nationalist”-associated figures (Nicholas II, Kolchak, Denikin).The pattern here more clearly confirms what was already evident above:
-
Decrease in antipathy towards liberal figures (Kerensky, Milyukov) and especially towards the Ukrainian anarchist Makhno. This should be interpreted as just the consequences of the end of Soviet propaganda against them; people simply no longer take an interest in them, one way or the other.
-
Curiously, Stalinist sentiments are slightly stronger amongst youth and the boomers, versus the middle-aged, who are far more skeptical. This is probably because those two groups have more of a patriotic-vatnik tilt to them than the middle-aged, whose formative experiences were in the 1990s. Recall that so far as political tribalism in Russia is concerned, Stalin is more of a patriot than a Communist.
- Figures for the general population differ slightly from public poll results because I didn’t apply the demographic weightings.
Why there was such a rise of possitive outlook regarding Stalin and Lenin?
Does it have something to do with institutional rehabilition through education?
I explained it here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/tribal-stalinism/
Looking at the tables helps. There’s no particular rise in positive sentiments towards Lenin either over time or by generation (it is only boomers who really like Lenin).
To the contrary, in relative terms, Lenin’s brand has been in retreat ever since the end of the USSR: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russian-society-is-full-of-sovoks/
have an Americanized mindset
Written as if that is a bad thing.
It’s interesting though that most of those surveyed either regard the issue as irrelevant or answer “both sides had legitimate points”. Makes me wonder how much point there is to those long pieces about WW1 and the Bolsheviks one sometimes reads here. That must seem incredibly remote to most people who are in their 20s today.
Great point, I’ll get to writing about Kim Kardashian right away.
That’s not what I meant. But when almost 80% of 18-32 olds answer “no relevance to today”, “hard to say” or “all sides had legitimate points” it doesn’t seem to be that important an issue to most people in that age cohort.
Granted, most people are stupid and have low standards.
I notice that Skoropadsky doesn’t even merit consideration in these polls. He was, after all, the one who advocated a confederated state between Ukraine and Russia. According to some, he was a very influential figure during the revolutionary period. Well, at least Makhno still is worth consideration? 🙂
Nicholas II is not”white.” “White” – those who fought with the Bolsheviks. Nicholas II with his disgusting wife and Rasputin was the de facto best friend of the Bolsheviks. “Achievements” Nicholas II in the revolution is much more than the achievements of Lenin.
Please.
Anatoly, be glad you’re not “Americanized”
There are two kinds of “Americanism” and neither is perfect. The old one is just a heck of a lot better than the new.
Old Americanism in cinema: ‘Shane,’ basically all John Ford movies, and James Cagney’s movie ‘Angels with Dirty Faces’
New Americanism in cinema: Garbage like that movie they made glorifying the Israelis, ‘Exodus.’
First of all, if you subscribe – as Anatoly does – to a religion that actually believes in apostolic succession (like Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) then Americanism is almost naturally a bad thing since it tends towards unhealthy egalitarianism and overwrought religious indifferentism disguised as “pluralism.” John Adams valiantly defended the idea of a “natural aristocracy,” and Orestes Brownson tried to make a place for Christendom in America, but neither was really successful in the long run. The Roman Catholic Church condemned it as a heresy for generations. In the 1960s, its bishops implicitly compromised with this heresy. Now look at the RCC. It’s a total mess in America. (I recommend David Carlin (no relation to Anatoly, I suppose) and his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church in America. Although Carlin doesn’t do enough to analyze the role of Jewish social engineering in the form of “urban renewal.”) Once the American Catholics were marginalized and watered down, it was easy for the bankers and Federal Reserve type cabal to take over more thoroughly. That’s why Hollywood’s “golden age” stopped in the mid ’60s; they replaced or hamstrung good plots and wonderful acting with smut.
Second, the idea of being “Americanized” has shifted anyway. Americanism was always a problem; I recommend reading ‘Taxation No Tyranny’ by Dr. Samuel Johnson in which he tears apart the rhetoric of the American Revolution. But, pre-Judaized America wasn’t irredeemable. Before what I call “the invasion” – the migration of eastern European Jewry into this country after the 1890s – America was a place that believed somewhat in self-restraint. Now we are a country with a Ponzi scheme economy.
You know, I’m no linguist, but I believe the Latin word for “land” is often given to us as “patria.” Traditionally, Americans in their rural farming communities and urban ethnic neighborhoods acted accordingly: they treated their homes like it was sacred because their fathers had built life there. But now we move around, atomized, from one ugly and mediocre suburb to the next. Even those of us with some kind of true philosophy in our blood almost have to live this way, this crazy and pell-mell life.
Most Americans these days don’t even know where their grandparents and great-grandparents are buried, if they were lucky enough to know them.
((They)) (you know who I mean) replaced the “American dream” of an honest, simple, self-sufficient, and family life with the post WW2 “American dream” of having a milquetoast house, a bunch of cars, and secular humanism. And it sucks! It is a bad thing!
My understanding is that any real nationalism has to be based on a conception of a shared landscape, and it’s no coincidence that cosmopolitan bankers love highways and subdivisions that destroy our precious farming resources and ruined our inner cities.
It’s a shame the old America died too, because it wasn’t unfriendly with Russia. We were never allies, exactly, but Tsar Alexander got along quite well with the U.S. Govt in the 1860s, both seeing each other as counterweights to the plotting of France and Disraeli, et al.
I don’t think his point can be brushed off so easily. You may consider yourself as the political vanguard of your generation, but normies your age have a much easier time relating to things like rooting for Russia in the World Cup or the WWII Victory Cult than they do to the concept of the Triune Nation. But you should write about the Kardashians anyway, they’re Armenian, so kinda relevant, and you’ll certainly be better at it than writing about football.
As a Russian living in Russia, it is categorically a bad thing.
Karlin likes to unload the ‘Triune nation’ schmaltz only once in a while, and then not really discuss it any further. It’s kind of a ‘hit and run’ tactic of his that I suspect he knows is not really worth defending.
It would be interesting what kind of results they would get for feelings towards Hitler for the different ages.
Much of that is the centralization from urbanization as the economic centers moved to industrial from agrarian.
Its doubtless that was accompanied by atomization and destruction of a number of social customs and mores: one contemporary commentator during the 40s felt that it was an effective destruction of the association of land with work, family and home, as men went to factories and home held less overall meaning. The domestic economy for women was simultaneously destroyed as well, so home and land would hold less meaning for them as well.
It was almost certainly unavoidable, though, as the value of agrarian efforts plummeted due to mechanization and higher value was produced through centralized factories. We see this from seeing records of the percentage of income, from use of income for food rapidly decreased while housing increased – indicating increasing availability of commodities and decreasing living space. It can certainly be saddening on many levels and it essentially is rampant cultural destruction, but its hard to see how it could have turned out any other way with industrialization. The same trends, modified somewhat by culture, occur in many different places: its a legacy of industrialization.
If you want to talk about schmaltz, how about talking about the crap that is spewed by the likes of Soros and McCain, the stuff you like.
Whether the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War or the American left in 2016, dedicated internationalists complaining about “foreign intervention” never fails to amuse. Also the Bolsheviks made good use of Chinese and other volunteers in the war.
It’s interesting that the percentages for positive views of Nicholas II and Stalin are quite close to each other, there must be considerable overlap between both groups. So at least some of those don’t seem to view Nicholas an an “anti-Stalin”…will be interesting to see if/how Kholmogorov adresses that issue in his upcoming article.
This is a very strange statement. The idea of “impoverishment” and “oppression” of the peasantry remains in Russia the center of historical mythology. Any indication of the fantastic laziness of the peasants and their drunkenness, are perceived as sacrilege and blasphemy.
Whoever said that I like either Soros or McCain? Besides, I pick and choose the topics that I find most interesting, and the Triune theory happens to be one of them.
I can’t argue with you about what the typical Russian interpretation of that question about foreign interference is, but couldn’t it also swing the other way, ie the Kaiser setting up Lenin and his Bolshies to take down the Czar in WWI and it’s aftermath?
I guess that’s not a “civil war” but a “revolution”, but revolutions just about never succeed without acquiring foreign state support.
Probably they were lazy drunkards (let’s face it, a lot of Russians still are), but the most hard-working and driest elements were the kulaks, who were hardest hit by communism.
Communism is a great way of selecting for bad behavioral patterns on a biological level (fortunately that effect is usually not very large), and also for teaching the population to behave as badly as possible (because good behavior will result in gulag, like being a successful peasant will make you a kulak, whereas being a lazy drunkard will at least earn you the title of “oppressed bednyak”).
Lol the word to describe those guys who sometimes post here – they are “vatniks”, not “sovoks”.
These two overlapping, not mutually exclusive, categories: “communists” and “patriots”. Well, in Russia.
They undoubtedly were lazy drunkards.
Number of working days (per year) in the Russia village 1902
number of working days 107
number of non-working days 258
including holidays 123
http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/011/039/1232/015Mironov_1.pdf
“In 1906-1907 the state spent 128 329 000 rubles on loan assistance to the population of 12 provinces (Central Russia). At the same time, from may 1, 1906 to April 30, 1907, the population of these provinces bought vodka in the amount of 130 505 000 rubles, i.e. 2 176 000 rubles more than the sums that the population received from the state” http://www.polit.ru/article/2010/12/10/consumlevel/#
I would say that Nicholas II each year is becoming less even an ideological figure. Now it’s in many minds just a historical figure, part of the pantheon of Russian history – representative of a certain historical era, rather than any contemporary ideological conflicts.
Positive views of him will be inverse correlation to historical knowledge of his leadership (which was incompetent leadership), but more likely to correlate with people’s warm feelings towards overall historical era he represents in their mind (excluding certain strange cults that can worship him).
In the way “Victoria” – represents in England, sometimes less the actual Queen of England, and more the historical era she is associated with.
As for Stalin – it’s still a “live” ideological figure. Probably a few more generations, for this to go away.
As noted:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/25062018-remembering-richard-pipes-oped/
Isn’t he seen as a martyr/saint by some Orthodox believers? Is that a marginal phenomenon or does it have some wider appeal?
Even the youngest people who have conscious memories of his rule must be close to 80 now though.
But I guess due to his association with WW2 he will always have a somewhat prominent place in collective memory.
Old-school medieval peasantry was like that everywhere. For them, it was the rational behavior. You work hard, save food or money, and then inevitably it’s all taken from you by your lord, or your king, or some passing army. So you produce exactly what you need, and when you are done you kick back. Your free time is yours; no one can steal it from you.
Not by some believers, but by the Church itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_the_Romanovs
They deserve it more than Charles does
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/King_Charles_I_from_NPG.jpg/1024px-King_Charles_I_from_NPG.jpg
I wasn’t being critical. The Romanov family truly were martyrs. Even if Nicholas’ mistakes were the ultimate cause of the events leading to martyrdom. But who is not a sinner?
Vlad Tepes (The Impaler) has a ~90% approval rating in Romania and was canonized as a saint.
Funnily enough, this happened under Ceausescu. The commies admired his repressions against the boyars.
So you hold with contempt ~80% of the Russian people, or ancestors of most Russians.
This silly argument has also been applied to medieval peasants who supposedly only worked 150 or whatever days a year. Only someone with no familiarity of how the countryside works would make such claims.
The stats you cite only include work in the market economy (that is, time spent in the fields and time spent at the markets). They do not include household work, which itself was probably at least 80 hours of labor for 19th century peasants. Firewood had to be cut and gathered, clothes had to be cut and mended, water had to be taken from wells, grain had to be taken to mills to be ground (often several hours’ journey), and of course all of the animals had to be cared for every day.
A discussion is here:
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/medieval-peasants-really-did-not-work-only-150-days-a-year
We might also point to the amount of household labour that had to be performed. Yarn had to be spun, cloth to be weaved. Cooking was over open fires: and that firewood had to be collected. Bread baked and so on and on. There was a recent report (rather exagerrated but still) which claimed that in the 1930s it took 65 hours of human labour a week to run a household. Today it takes 3. Things were worse back in medieval days.
And finally there’s the obvious point that these villeins and churls were animal owning peasant farmers. And people who own animals just don’t get 70 days off a year, you don’t manage to go off and get pissed for a week and then expect to have live animals when you come back.
What has been done here is to mistake work in the market economy for all the work being done. As a vast amount of a peasant’s work is not in that market economy (that’s why they’re peasants and why they’re poor) then they’ve decided not to include that back breaking labour done inside the household as labour.
Any evidence this was mostly spent on alcohol? Or perhaps the ones receiving the loans weren’t the ones drinking but the ones investing in their lands and working hard, only to be cut down by the Bolsheviks who favored the drunkards?
I don’t think that the idea of socialism is ever going to die. Just because it didn’t succeed the first time, it doesn’t mean that newer updated version is going to fail too.
I mean look at the good old Capitalism – it has undergone 3 major “upgrades” in the 20th century in the US. In the 30’s – the New Deal, in the 60’s – multiculturalism and in the 90’s – LGBT rights.
All 3 of those upgrades consisted of introducing socialist elements into capitalism, but unfortunately except for the first upgrade – the New Deal, the other 2 were phony. If Capitalism was superior system to socialism, why didn’t they try to upgrade it by introducing more capitalist elements, rather than socialist ones.
For example, instead of working their stupid asses 12 hours a day 5 days a week, they could have introduced 16 hour, 7 days a week work week, to see how would their working class liked the capitalism then.
My point is that every time Capitalism tries to “modernize” itself – it incorporates socialist elements – phony ones, but still. There is contradiction there – the biggest enemy of Capitalism – in the deranged minds of good ole Capitalists – is Socialism, yet in order to prevent a complete takeover by socialism, they introduce small dosages of Socialism – not enough to kill Capitalism, but just enough to save it.
It functions on the same principle as vaccination. In order to immunize yourself against a deadly disease, you introduce small amount of the deadly bacteria in order to build immunity in your system. Same thing with Capitalism – tries to vaccinate itself with small dosages of Socialism in order to build immunity to it. Nice try, but nothing can save Capitalism. It’s like trying to bring zombie back to life by giving it a CPR.
He was also a nationalist icon who resisted the Turks and their Bulgarian lackeys.
I’ve heard somewhere that Bandera’s family was ultimately of Romanian origin but a quick google search doesn’t turn up anything definitive (some ridiculous Russian website claims he is a Jew).
No, they are hardcore sovoks.
Vatniks are essentially just rednecks – so, approximately 70% and 50% of the Russian and White American population, respectively. They are not very intelligent and often have bad ideas, like proles anywhere, but their hearts are at least in the right place. And I want the best for them.
Why is Deniken so unpopular? Even if you disagreed with him, he was a pretty neutral character, no?
Why does Ukrainian Mankho have any support among Russians?
Doesn’t the approval level of Lenin seem way too high? Stalin industrialized Russia and defeated the Nazi invasion, what did Lenin do except destroy Russia? Hasn’t there even been an aggressive state campaign against Lenin under Putin?
like proles anywhere, but their hearts are at least in the right place.
AaronB’s metaphysical crap has infected the whole damn place.
Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons is always relevant!
How do you explain the relative popularity of Trotsky among the young people? This is not a sovok thing. Sovoks hate Trotsky.
Which commentator do you talk about though? The sovok here I saw was Israel Shamir (I’m not a fan of Shamir at all to be honest) and Admiral Martynov (cool guy, but a little scary dude that would have throw us all into the sea).
The guy that said you were traitor was Gerard? Still I love this guy Gerard – world’s best English speaking vatnik.
We all (you especially) should be proud of the blog to have Gerard here – he has some of the world’s best English skills.
A few more vatniks trained in English to this level, and we can conquer and destroy the English internet.
https://i.imgur.com/GXFpIDq.jpg
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/mh17-take/#comment-2344102
https://i.imgur.com/ZuEqzPR.jpg
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-46/#comment-2379209
Some of AP’s responses in that debate fucking memeable as well : )
https://i.imgur.com/sfMUmYg.jpg
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-46/#comment-2379356
Pretty sure Rednecks are about 95%+ of American population 🙂
Well yes, but there’s a difference between sinning by not remembering to buy a gift for your wife on your wedding anniversary, and sinning by being one of the top ten figures most responsible for fucking up the 20th century history.
Most of us are not in a position for our sins to matter as much as did those of Nicholas II.
I hope I live long enough to see Putin’s cannonization. Imagine one day when Putin is gone, probably in the 2050s or 2060s – how much everyone will miss him, and as we stay up all night on Karlin’s blog, writing reminiscencing posts from our apartments on the 60th floor skyscrapers of futuristic cyberpunk cities, lamenting the absence of Putin. E.g. “Putin would never have allowed Alibaba to buy the Mausoleum of Lenin”.
I guess he somehow will become a symbol of our youth, and of all our happiest and saddest memories.
A question of moral philosophy.
What happens if you are the pilot whose bad flying unintentionally helps to crash a plane with 100 souls? And what about 1 million? and what about 120 million?
^takes a bow^
My dear iffen, I merely bring out the best in people.
Its the future – join us.
the left doesn’t do enough against the phony elements. actually, no one does and everything that could challenge capitalism just so seems to be defined by extremism or something equally off-putting: Leftism – homomania and POZ, Christianity – evolution denial and comically embarassing instances of low-brow xenopatriotism, Islam – t**sm, …) Sometimes I wonder how organic it is.
Thank you for the response. It’s nice to find someone else who’s even interested in the question of American land use. I think it’s far more fundamental than we realize.
With that said though, I believe you’re risking the conflation of urbanization, period, with modern American-style urbanization
To make myself perfectly clear, although I am obviously a “country boy,” I have no problem with traditional cities. But we stopped building traditional cities in this country. And it was not because of inevitable market place events. It was because of conscious decisions by our public officials and corporations.
The following are facts:
– At the state and federal level, we had government “urban renewal initiatives”
– The state and federal governments subsidize highway construction
– The country uses a property tax system that incentivizes the wasteful use of land; because of our crazy tax system, it makes more fiscal sense to build an ugly, dirty parking lot instead of a nice apartment building
– The country has an inflationary fiat currency
Change any one of these things, but particularly all of them, and you would have what was the norm in western culture for millennia: responsible and moderate urbanization
I will leave you with a true anecdote. Erie County, New York has lost population in every census since the 1970s. Yet Erie County’s housing stock has grown and continues to grow. How does that make sense? People are leaving, yet more houses are being built? Huh? Well, it only explains in light of the above brief facts. Ever since the New Deal and the awful FDR, we have in this country a usurious and inflationary economy.
Cheers.
Vatnik refers to a Russian “redneck’s” cotton-padded jacket, if I’m not mistaken
The equivalent of that in rural America for us rednecks (I come from a redneck family but actually got a semblance of education) is or was the red Woolrich hunting jacket, also jokingly called a “Pennsylvania tuxedo.” This is or was the name of a nice beer by Dogfish Head, if you’re into beer.
I’m still trying to figure out the American equivalent of a Cossack, if there even can be one.
The closest is the cowboy.
Dmitry – you seem to have a lot of extra time on your hands, or do you do this for a living? :-0
This would not even be a sin, unless he knew he was a bad pilot but chose to fly anyways.
It’s from the cartoon meme of internet message boards (he’s named after the jacket) – invented by liberals to attack people who have standard, conservative patriotic views, which is online mainly passionately about things like decay of the West, greatness of Putin, Russia and Soviet Union, against the coup in Ukraine, sexual minorities etc.
Now the word has crossed from the internet meme, to become just a standard insultive one to refer to these people with these views, which demographically, as Karlin argues are partly something like patriotic rednecks in America.
In America, the equivalent meme I think is “le American bear” (which was apparently invented in Finland).
https://i.imgur.com/UPec8eD.png
http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/images/uploads/Le%20American%20Bear13581668461348152583001.png
No lol I just use the Vatnik meme generator and put some of Gerard’s posts there – it was quicker than writing a normal post here for me, which usually takes a long time for me to write.
https://nobsrussia.com/russia-watchers-fieldguide-essential/
Peasants can not be considered ” Russian people”. Similarly, the English or French peasants in the era of the hundred years war can hardly be considered the French people or the British people.
All this is a stupid apology, because the Protestants living in Russia (German, Finnish, Latvian colonists ), as well as some Russian sectarians (for example Molokans), work well in the “market economy”. Russian (and Ukrainian) peasants lived badly because they did not want to work and all the money spent on vodka. And the Imperial government unfortunately encouraged it instead of taking measures to transformation of peasants into people.
Correct.
Red Woolrich jackets, or lumberjack shirts more generally, is indeed American vatnik clothing. I usually wore those during the winter when I lived in the Bay Area.
American Cossacks are, of course, cowboys.
Still more accurate and useful than the liberal review on reality.
Of course, I have nothing against pulling down Lenin statues. You are forgetting my extremely powerful idea to have svidomy and sovoks duke it out over the fate of individual Lenin monuments. Sovoks win – they stay. Svidomy win – they get to pull it down. Rinse and repeat for every town and city. Make it a weekly, televised event.
It will let the svidomy have a sort of voice and investment into Russia’s direction, blow off necessary steam, and inject some Bronze Age vitalism into the body politic. The thymotic energies unleashed in these battles will provide the spiritual mortar for the next Russian Empire.
And those among the Russian peasants known as Kulaks (Kurkuls in Ukraine) also worked well.
But you are changing the subject.
You posted stats on number of days worked per year in order to stupidly imply that peasants were just relaxing the rest of the year, on vacation, drinking, or whatever, when obviously they were not. They were busy on non-working days, taking care of animals, gathering firewood, water from the well, repairing things on the farm , etc.. Anyone with a clue about rural life would know that and wouldn’t post such nonsense as you did.
That you made such a silly mistake has obvious implications for taking seriously anything else you claim about Russian rural life.
And living in a nearby village (in the same exact conditions) Germans or Finns worked twice more working days and received very different yields. And, unlike Russian peasants, Germans and Finns spent money (priority) on education for children, but not to buy vodka.
A saint isn’t a sinless man. A saint is someone who committed heroic deeds for God.
In Nicholas’ case, the heroic deed was stoically enduring a cruel death, no more.
But that is exactly what Lenin would deserve.
http://abload.de/img/leninobservesthenewsk2gux8.jpg
The hatred of peasants is a very Jewish and sovok thing. It is rooted in the hatred of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. Protestants seem to be far less threatening to Jews and Sovoks.
It for sure is a bad thing, for “Americanized” effectively means “uprooted”.
Very perceptive comments, IMO, which are echoed by our own observations in Western Europe.
I have also often wondered about the inevitability, due to the increased mechanization and productivity, and am currently thinking that in all likelihood genetic selection is already at play as illustrated by collapsing birth rates. What the outcome will be in a few generations I of course have absolutely no idea, but what I can observe in my little corner of the world is the rapid disappearance of the non-traditionalist types a result of chosen sterility (delayed pregnancies for young women, culture of divorce or even of not even bothering to marry anymore, etc.)
Latvian riflemen come to mind.
As a result I am have a lot of antipathy towards Latvians.
But aren’t Russian nationalists just a branch of the svidomy nation? Really, isn’t a belief in Triunism just another fairy tale in the library of both the nationalists and the svidomys?…
Interesting anecdote about Erie county, which I did not know. Do you know if this is a mere statistical anomaly? In California, especially the Bay Area, the growth of housing stock correlates positively with population increase.
Wasn’t Ike’s “Interstate System” a non-issue at the time when it was built, a non-issue in the sense of reflecting a general consensus of opinion on both sides of the aisle?
In any even centralization and ensuing problems that you described appear to be entirely inescapable since the end of the War between the States.
Minorities who complain about the USSR always crack me up: they were among the biggest supporters of the revolution (with some exceptions like the Germans, who were a favored minority). The Mensheviks were even more minority-heavy than the Bolsheviks.
The Reformation marked the transition of power from the feudal lords to the bourgeoisie, a necessary precursor to the establishment of communism.
Apparently Thomas More (obviously an enemy of the Reformation) was popular in the USSR because of communal property ownership in Utopia.
I refuse to believe that even Soviet historians could believe something as silly as what you say in your comment though.
In England this is true.
Not in France however.
Well he’s wrong (as usual), the Donbass area has an astronomical abortion rate, unlikely they care about restoring the Holy Rus.
Marxists consider the English Civil War to be a revolution which, like the French marked the transition of power to bourgeois liberals from the feudal aristocracy. The French Republicans were also very favorable to Protestants vis-a-vis Catholics
It certainly isn’t now; as the highways sprawl into the countryside, you often have protest launched against it due to some degree of awareness of the ultimate effect of having increased access and the urbanization monoculture: represented here by hypermarkets such as Wal-Mart and chain stores which promptly stamp out any local businesses.
To my knowledge, such protests invariably fail since the incentives align against them, often for very reasonable reasons. While some people may be interested in preserving the local culture, many more are interested in maximizing their home price, having a job that pays better, or simply appreciate the greater convenience of a McSuburb setup.
I don’t disagree that ultimately this reflects the will of the monied elites in large part because if you look at the places that actually seem to practice the most exclusion, it will actually be the super-elite SWPL areas of peak gentrification.
As for Erie county, prices are probably being driven up by property speculation but we need to look at the numbers to confirm.
Peak Leninism would be a theme park for children and its own soft drink:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XNO_OTni_N0/T9f-cb-o6SI/AAAAAAAAD_o/gNY5iFxoeB4/s640/IMG_3257.JPG
‘Holy Rus‘ isn’t that the place where all of the warring princess met and took an oath including a kissing of our Lord’s cross, swearing to forego any further fratricidal murder, and on the very next day resumed the ‘brotherly’ carnage?
Stupid of them then. The bourgeoisie weren’t the leaders of the Parliamentarians, weren’t in power after the war, and the wealthiest of them supported the Royalists.
I can’t think of anything more Bronze Age than that.
okay, maybe if there was pederasty too
Why, and what was Cromwell?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/
No, I don’t think so. Pederasty was more of an ancient Greek and Roman institution. Perhaps, more eastern in inspiration too (Chinese, Mongolian). You seem to be an expert on Eastern debauchery, perhaps you could shed more light on this?
I think Nicholas II did know that he was a bad pilot, but believed that it was his duty to fly the plane nevertheless, because refusing to do so (like abdication) would be like deliberately crashing the plane. So basically he understood that he was a bad pilot, but thought that there was no way to exit the cockpit or to let anyone in, and so had to try his best to fly the plane.
Part of the gentry who lived off the incomes from his estates.
The idea that the Parliamentary/Royalist division was primarily class based has been debunked for many decades now.
The English civil war as a bourgeois revolution (also the end of the Middle Ages) was taught as incontrovertible truth in Hungary until 1989. Actually it was called the English Bourgeois Revolution, not as some “civil war.”
Everything was class based for the Marxists-Leninists.
In the East, pederasty is only associated with Japan that I know of; the form that we recognize really seems to be heavily associated with martial cultures and “worship of the male form” taken to a certain extreme extent.
My comment was mostly about Bronze Age Pervert’s memes.Its a funny observation of what appears to be the final result of masculinity spirals.
I should note though that I’ve read that medieval warfare, despite its frequency, it could be rather low intensity in its lethality – armor was quite effective, enough that from analysis of skeletons on battlefields finds that those killed usually suffered from multiple wounds to the vulnerable areas, execution-style most likely after already been otherwise incapacitated, and there are estimates of immediate battlefield casualties being as low as 10-12% of fatalities. The brutal wars would usually be the result of organized battles where slaughter during routs and disease could take its toll(including from injuries and “medical care”); I doubt that constant minor noble battles with the small forces would be anywhere as close as total(and indeed, would be rather economically unsustainable if they had to keep levying their work force).
Please, the Cromwells were parvenus
What Marxists overtly taught and even believed in is one thing, i.e, that everything is about class struggle and evolution from feudalism to socialism via capitalism and so on until the ultimate paradise of communism. The real reason that Christian peasantry was considered the enemy of ‘revolution’ was because they were basically impregnable to any modern ideology including that of communism because they were (1) materially self sufficient and (2) had an ideology of their own which was Christianity that provided complete philosophy of life and also because of having low education and often being illiterate they were not susceptible to indoctrination unlike the intelligentsia. To ‘modernize’ them they had to be subjected to horrible traumas like ethnic cleansing or genocide and uprooted. Bolsheviks and Stalin understood it very well. They knew the mechanism and the method. This explains the so called dekulakization. But the Jewish spirit of the revolution had anti-Christian animus on its own which was specifically Jewish with 2000 years old history and whether the Jewish commissars were consciously aware of it or not they were in the grips of it. In the end killing Christians was easier.
Uprooting people accelerates modernization. A good example is contemporary Poland. Its eastern parts were populated with people who were ethnically cleansed after the WWII from what is now Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. Their voting patterns and social attitudes are very different from their compatriots in eastern Poland who were not uprooted. Uprooting happened during Industrial Revolution in UK and on much greater scale in the US with population of people who voluntarily or not got uprooted in order to end up in America. This is additional reason why societies should be concerned with immigrants. They are harbingers and soldiers of change who are ready to change anything and willing to adjust to anything. Talhas of this world even though overtly conservative and traditional in the sense of their culture which they left behind will be ready to support change of society they entered to the detriment of the society they entered. Because they are uprooted. They do not give a damn. The know they do not belong here or at leas as much as they belonged to the places the came from.
Only Jews and Gypsies or other nomads do to fear being uprooted because they do not have roots. They have nothing to lose. They do not know what is there to lose. They do not know the concept of being rooted. They belong everywhere. They are natural Mercurian people in terminology of Yuri Slezkine. The modern left wants to turn all of us in to Mercurian people. But what to do with the Jews who try or at least pretend to become Apollonian people in Israel? Apollonian faction has won the 2016 election and the Mercurian faction went mad or at least pretend to be very angry. Anyway it is an intra Jewish quarrel. They will sort it out for us.
This is a remarkable comment. Thank you.
I hope we can get to meet in meat space one day.
I’m not sure of what is the Jewish perspective (if such exists) of peasants, and conflict with the peasants?
Peasants themselves, at least in the Russian Empire, had no national consciousness (in some way, it was part of their noble quality – although they also have other noble qualities; there is a great passage by Flaubert in Madame Bovary about their historical timelessness [writing of course in 19th century France]).
For example, during the First World War, when captured Austrian soldiers were sent Siberia prison, many peasants welcomed them as friendly guests (and tried to give them gifts – which actually allowed many to survive, and behaviour of Russian peasants has surprised greatly the Austrian soldiers).
–
Anti-Jewish pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th century, were done almost exclusively not by peasants at all, but small groups of working class (proletarian) men, and even lower-middle class men (shopkeepers, etc), who moved around the country and of course could steal a lot of things by doing this, while the authorities themselves were not directly involved, but simply inactive.
–
Another unusual thing in the history of Russian peasantry in relation to the Jews, is the existence of the groups of sectarians (in Russia), some quite significant numbers historically semi-Judaizing or even becoming Jews from late 1700s, after exposure to the bible. These often were then persecuted by the authorities, and even sometimes expelled to corners of the empire, or moving to the Pale of Settlement.
The result end up with this kind of historical time capsule, on borders of Azerbaijan:
–
Or ones today in Voronezh. Generally Israeli authorities makes it difficult for members of the villages to immigrate (to Israel). (In Israeli history, this demographic was important in developing the pre-state agriculture from the late 19th century.)
In different periods of Soviet history, peasants are idealized or alternately persecuted (but even idealized one part of the peasantry while at the same time, terrible persecuted another part).
The view today (contemporary mainstream view), is towards an idealization of all parts of the peasantry.
The correct view is probably in between the two views (anti-idealization and idealization). And certainly, it is not a completely homogeneous group, but behaviour actually probably varied a lot between different villages.
But etymology of the word “vatnik” – is completely new, liberal internet created word, from the meme (named after the jacket). It has no actual relation to clothing.
There’s a concept of negligent homicide – if your terrible incompetence crashes a plane (and you somehow survive), you will usually go to jail, although for a lesser time than if you had deliberately crashed the plane.
You are describing the idea incorrectly. Negligent homicide occurs if, for example, a doctor is drunk when performing surgery and accidentally kills the patient, or someone high kills someone else while driving drunk, or for some reason deciding to drive while blindfolded and then running people over by accident. It is not simply poor decision-making, such as in good faith choosing the wrong surgical procedure leading to death.
Nicholas II made some terrible mistakes but not of the kind that could be called “negligent homicide.” That having been said, going to war against a fellow conservative monarchy in order to protect a regicidal regime was probably worse than a mistake, also a moral failure, for which he suffered terribly and with dignity.
“The presentation of the peasant’s attitude to work give the Commission’s materials for the study of the current situation agriculture and rural productivity of Russia, established on may 26
In 1872, the Commission invited 181 experts (mainly landowners).. The Commission’s experts concluded: “the success of rural agriculture is mainly impeded by:
1) laziness and carelessness of the peasants, frequent holidays
2) drunkenness, who has become an endemic disease and dramatically
reducing the working capacity,
3) the failure by the peasants of contracts and breach of agreements,
4) disrespect of the peasants to the property of others,frequent theft and illegal cutting of forest
5) the absence of any clue about the legality and honesty”
Do you believe that this Imperial Commission was composed of Jews and sovoks?
Well, I will add the oppression of hardworking peasants by evil landowners and tsars – this is the cornerstone of the Soviet myth. Any doubts about the sanctity of pre-revolutionary peasantswere a monstrous heresy in the USSR
And from earliest theories of Lenin, always a cornerstone.
But I think other commentators are referring to, in the historicaly reality, the peasantry were divided into three classes. The most prosperous rural strata are identified as a capitalist type and “exploitative class”, dispossessed, and later (during Stalin collectivization of the agriculture sector) became directly persecuted.
https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9E_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%85_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B7%D1%8F%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8
As Anatoly says, Kolchak was popularized by the film Admiral. No one has done so much for Denikin. Also, Denikin did most of his fighting on Ukrainian soil. No such ideological contamination for Kolchak who was also strongly Orthodox and fought entirely within Russia with Russian troops. He even managed to upset/be betrayed by the US. Denikin was supported by such strange entities as Australian tank squadrons.
The Germans of Saratov were given the poorer land. Drier, No Chernozerm. Even so, their communities became much wealthier. Compared to State (Royal Land) Peasants, they also paid higher taxes.
The Dutch conquest of Britain in 1688-91 was more of a bourgeois transition. The Dutch were supported by the Whig Junto. Fabulously wealthy aristocrats of rather short lineages.
Thereafter, banks, the Bank of England, the National Debt, paper money (a Scottish idea but even a Dutch zeitgeist,), stock markets and financial bubbles – the South Seas rather than Tulips.
Dude. Kim Kardashian is so 2011. Feature more writing by Greasy William and Thorfinnsson, post some Cardi B videos and watch your numbers pop.
It wasn’t either though. The Whig oligarchs still earned their money through their lands, whatever their origins. Even by George III’s reign only 10%of MPs were from mercantile backgrounds. Only thing that could properly be described as a bourgeois transition was the Reform Act.
The BoE and National Debt were just more effiicient ways of doing things that were already being done by the Stuarts and probably would have been tried by them anyway (James was actually planning a national bank iirc)
The report conveniently omits a broader context who profited form alcohol production, who owned country taverns and how often peasants were paid in scripts redeemable in taverns only.
or another version
Here another version:
Latvia was a part of the Russian Empire so the Latvians had every right to participate in the festivities.
You seem to be the type that wants his cake and to eat it too.
Every comment seems to inspire a little more dislike.
Pretty sure Rednecks are about 95%+ of American population
If only this were true. 🙂
You need to take some sort of tranquilizer.
That might be because there are classes and if you keep this in mind some events make a lot of sense.
To reference an extremely obscure meme from an irrelevant source:
Is Russia now E R E C T for Kolchak?
…I hope at least one other person is amused.
I think the resentment (this goes for me, anyway) is not so much about Latvians “participating in the festivities” but more along the lines that Latvians played a critical role in consolidating Bolshevism, out of greater disproportion to their numbers than any other ethnicity including the Jews, but nowadays like to pretend they had nothing to do with it, that they were “occupied” by what they had themselves helped create, that Russia should pay them gibsmedats to atone for it, and that you should go to prison if you publicly disagree with any of that (Estonia, at least, has a somewhat genuine respect for traditional Western values such as debate and freedom of speech; the Latvians don’t). Impressive combination of stupidity, cynicism, authoritarianism, and self-serving hypocrisy. I view such Latvians, who I suspect constitute the majority, as consummate sovoks.
is not so much about Latvians “participating in the festivities” but more along the lines that Latvians played a critical role in consolidating Bolshevism, out of greater disproportion to their numbers than any other ethnicity including the Jews, but nowadays like to pretend they had nothing to do with it, that they were “occupied” by what they had themselves helped create, that Russia should pay them gibsmedats to atone for it,
This I can agree with; people need to own all aspects of their countries past.
You assume Stalin was a ‘bad’ man (as many Americucks and smelly lefties do). Stalin was a patriot. More of a patriot in fact than the traitorous Bolshevik scum at the time he came to power. The purges were necessary to get rid of these traitorous elements. Then he collectivized to increase the amount of grain exports from the inefficient kulak system that existed before. He turned the poor, agricultural country into a world wide power, set the stage for Russian athletes, soldiers, scientists, culture and art. He changed every single aspect of the country. It was later Soviet leaders who ruined everything – though I am almost certain if Andropov came into power (who coincidentally was also a patriot) rather than the traitor Gorbachev, the USSR would still be around developing along the lines of modern China.
The main argument against stalin is rooted in slave morality. There is no place for slave morality in Russia. The WW2 generation was the greatest generation in the USSR, where a man could go from working in a factory to flying in space or creating the VDV or Spetsnaz or making guns like the AK47.
Religion, sorry Marxoids, was the best determinant. There were no Catholic Parliamentarians, and no Royalist Puritans.
The ones who were his friends and colleagues for decades, and with whom he plotted to destroy the Russian government?
So the patriot embedded himself with the group who overthrew the government and ruined the country, but later betrayed and killed his friends/colleagues in order to rule himself, so he could save the country. The entire revolution was part of the patriot’s long game.
Or he too was a traitor but he betrayed his friends too, in order to seize power.
LOL, no culture or art in Russia prior to Soviets.
For the other stuff, refer to Karlin’s other post.
haha!……not on the same level as the Soviets you cretin….they brought highculture and education to , throughout the entire country from the Caucasus to the Central Asian states to the Far East. The incredible performances in the Olympics of 1952 and 1956 with a whole generation wiped out….were nothing short of a miracle. During the Tsarist time there was no standout Russian sport-stars getting produced you idiot.
What has Poroshenko/Valtsman got to do with this you retarded prick? Or for that matter much of the post-Communist ruling elite in places as Poland and Romania
It’s an entirely false analogy to make with Stalin you idiot…..a man who walked the walk on fighting nepotism and corruption……something Ukraine could learn about you prick…..instead of seeing the President Valtsman on his knees in Serbia , prostituting himself (again)