Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Israel is using food as a weapon of war. Unforgivable.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

This blog will pay for itself.

“But what about the lurkers?”

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Everybody saw this coming.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

The arc of the moral universe doesn’t bend itself. it’s up to us.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Baby steps, because the Republican Party is full of angry babies.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

It could be worse. Vance could have said “post-menopausal sows.” Waiting for that audiotape to surface.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Everyone is in a bubble, but some bubbles model reality far better than others!

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War for Ukraine Day 310: Differential Social Organization

War for Ukraine Day 310: Differential Social Organization

by | 74 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , ,

On Wednesday night, after I’d racked out as I was still trying to shake the stomach bug I picked up, you all decided to have a discussion of the sociology of Russia in the comments. Whether you realized it or not. You don’t see me coming to your workplace to discuss your areas of expertise around the water cooler without a heads up…

More seriously it was an interesting discussion but what was missing was the actual terminology and description of the empirical theory to provide framing and context to the discussion. Which is where I come in. What you all have been discussing for two nights now in the comment is how Russia is differentially socially organized. Differential social organization is an empirical theory developed by Sutherland, who was part of the Chicago School of Criminlogy and the scholar who gives us modern social learning theory. It is a variant of social disorganization theory that was developed among the sociologists at the University of Chicago who were studying the causes of deviance and delinquency in Chicago and whether there was an empirical explanation for the geographic patterns to them. This is known as the Chicago Neighborhood Study.

Differential social organization posits that societies with high levels of deviance, delinquency, and crime are not actually socially disorganized. Rather, they are differentially socially organized. The culture – the sociology, the politics, the economics, the kinship dynamics, the types and patterns of religious behavior, sexual mores and behavior – all these are shaped by and a response to the conditions within those societies. They develop and are then transmitted generationally through social learning to allow the people within those societies – whether a neighborhood, a religious sect, or the citizenry of a state – to survive those specific socio-cultural, socio-political, socio-economic, etc conditions they live in.

Without spending the next several hours making lists of historical examples, suffice it to say that Russia is both a differentially organized society and a state and society composed of a number of differentially organized societies. All of which, from the urban core areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg to the much more rural areas on the borders of the Russian Federation such as Dagestan or Tyvan, are all differentially socially organized to allow the Russian citizens in those places – whether ethnic Russians or ethnic minorities – to survive. Moreover, while the name of the state that is Russia may change periodically, the official label that political scientists and historians will place on its form of government, and the names and titles of the people running the state and society also change with the name of the state, a constant for several hundred years has been that the state has been some variant of authoritarian, the society has been hierarchical, and the people running the place – from nobility to senior party officials to siloviki and oligarchs – have consistently transferred Russia’s wealth upward and then pocketed it. Whatever Russian society is, whatever its cultures and sub-cultures are, they are differentially socially organized to allow Russians to survive this so far enduring, generational reality. Reorganizing a differentially organized society is hard. It is also a slow process as social learning is not a quick process especially when it would require an extended phase of unlearning the definitions favorable, unfavorable, and neutralizing that allow Russians to survive right now.

That’s enough sociology for a Friday night!

Here’s President Zelenskyy’s address from earlier today. Video below, English transcript after the jump:

Dear Ukrainians, I wish you health!

I held another meeting of the Staff – already the 45th this year.

The main thing is Donetsk region, Luhansk region – our Donbas, where the fiercest battles are going on. Bakhmut, Soledar, Kreminna… In general, we hold our positions. There are also areas of the front where we are slowly advancing. And I thank all our soldiers who ensure this. You are real heroes!

We discussed the situation in the south, on our border, the supply of weapons, and the further strengthening of air defense.

This year, we not only maintained our air defenses, but we made them stronger than ever. But in the new year Ukrainian air defense will become even stronger, even more effective.

Ukrainian air defense can become the most powerful in Europe, and this will be a guarantee of security not only for our country, but also for the entire continent.

After the meeting of the Staff, at a separate meeting we discussed the situation in the energy industry, what we are preparing for.

We have a clear strategy for ensuring the generation and supply of electricity. It takes time to implement it. It takes a lot of effort. But it will be. It will be mandatory. It is one of the most important tasks for the next year, and I have no doubt that we will accomplish it.

Today I spoke with the Prime Minister of Greece. We summarized the year, and I thanked Greece for supporting our country. We agreed for next year how we can make cooperation even more meaningful.

I held a meeting with our diplomats. There are many questions, but the main thing is the measures we are preparing to strengthen Ukraine already in January and February.

Ukraine will retain the achieved leadership in foreign policy and will be even more active, that’s for sure.

And one more.

Today, for the first time, the ceremony of awarding our volunteers with the Golden Heart took place.

It is fair and honest – at the end of the year, to recognize those who help our defense, help people and our entire state all year long.

Thank you to everyone who fights for our country. Who helps Ukrainians. Who works for Ukraine and our future.

Glory to all our people!

Glory to Ukraine!

A message from Ukrainian Minister of Defense Oleksii Reznikov:

Russia, of course, is continuing its last week of 2022 bombardment:

Here is former NAVDEVGRU Squadron Leader Chuck Pfarrer’s most recent assessments of the situations in Kherson, Svatove, and Bakhmut:

Splash one more Russian lieutenant colonel:

The Wall Street Journal has published its latest video reporting regarding Mariupol:

Three days ago, VICE published video reporting on the Battle for Bakhmut on their YouTube page:

Here’s their description of their reporting:

Dec 27, 2022

“Bakhmut has become a bloody vortex at the center of Ukraine’s fight against invading Russian forces. With thousands dead after months of constant Russian attacks, the city is barely standing. VICE News spent two weeks inside the city embedded with soldiers, civilians and frontline workers trying to survive in the face of ceaseless violence.”

That’s enough for tonight.

Your daily Patron!

And a new video from Patron’s official TikTok:

@patron__dsns

Такий милий тренд! 🥰 #песпатрон

♬ оригинальный звук – Di Anivia

The caption machine translates as:

Such a cute trend! 🥰 #PatrontheDog

Open thread!

Reader Interactions

74Comments

  2. 2.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Winston: OK folks, let’s not feed the troll.  I promise not to do it, too [I participated several times in the past, and it’s a waste of bytes on the server WG and Cole so painstakingly set up for us all.]

  4. 4.

    Anonymous at Work

    Adam,

    Are we seeing more senseless slaughter of conscripts in Bakhmut and be Svatove for any reason?  The recent bout of windowitis among Russian bigwigs, raw troops being available or Intel about a big UA push?

    Also, will the French Himmars have the longer range munitions needed?

  5. 5.

    Alison Rose

    That’s enough sociology for a Friday night!

    No such thing, at least not around these parts. Thank you very much for these insights.

    90% of the buildings in Mariupol were damaged — JFC. Once this is over and the enemy has been booted back to their black hole of a country, I really hope the world steps up to help Ukraine rebuild, because it’s going to be a massive undertaking. And we owe it to them.

    Also, cleanup on aisle 1.

    Thank you as always, Adam.

  6. 6.

    West of the Rockies

    Man, if that UK figure is accurate (690 RU killed-in-action on Dec 29/30), that has to erode troop moral and maybe even Russian citizen support for the war.  When’s the last time the US lost so many soldiers in a day?  Gotta go back to Korea.

  7. 7.

    Alison Rose

    Here’s a nice little video about a shelter for stray doggies in Kharkiv that put out a request on social media for rugs to help insulate the kennels, and they got over 100 brought in to them. They cut them up and use them to line the floors and openings of the kennels to keep the puppers warm in the winter.

  8. 8.

    tokyocali (formerly tokyo ex-pat)

    Thank you, Adam. I hope you are feeling better. I appreciate that lesson in sociology.

    As you point out, unlearning those social lessons takes time. At the same time, Ukraine had been part of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union. It achieved independence and has implemented democratic reforms. It also professionalized its military. Is there anything from Ukraine’s experience that can be applied to Russia or is Russia simply too big and too diverse to make the necessary changes?

  9. 9.

    jackmac

    Thanks Adam for your fascinating take on Russia’s societal organization — past and present.

    Also, in a link the Ukrainian defense minister warns Russian men that shortly after the New Year there will be another round of forced conscription, border closings and even martial law.

    Do you have any additional information or theories on what could happen?

  10. 10.

    NutmegAgain

    Hey!  I’m a bonded & insured board certified sociologist! But yesterday I was wrangling a freaked out foster doggy, and lacked the bandwidth to delve into the comments. Also I’m not a criminologist, so I don’t have the same kinds of theoretical orientations as Adam. I’m as interested to learn this perspective as anyone. So, thank you Adam–it’s appreciated (and now I’m gonna go back and read yesterday’s comments…)

  11. 11.

    Matt McIrvin

    Adam never defined exactly what differential social organization was, so I looked it up. It appears to mean that the people in the society don’t share common values that are unproblematically agreed upon–rather, for much of the population, social norms are defined so that criminal behavior becomes the done thing. Rules supposedly exist but the norm is that they are always broken. I suppose speed limits in the US are like that.

    But I do recall hearing Russians saying that they found the level of obedience to the law among Americans bizarrely high, and speculating that it was because we had become inured to a public surveillance society more oppressive than what Russians would stand for (there may have been a hint of trolling involved here).

    But, as a nonexpert, I wonder if it’s really “differential” at all if everyone shares the same essentially criminal values. Maybe if everyone is a criminal no one is?

  12. 12.

    Amir Khalid

    @West of the Rockies:

    I’m dead sure it has eroded both troop morale and the people’s support for the, ahem, special military operation. But given the risks of open protest in Putin’s Russia, I doubt we’re going to see much in the way of overt opposition. Nor will we see a groundswell of protest culminating in Putin being weakened or toppled, because his national security apparatus knows how to deal with that. My gut feeling is that Putin will retain power until one day, out of the blue, it is suddenly taken from him.

  14. 14.

    Andrya

    @tokyocali (formerly tokyo ex-pat):  ln Fall/early Winter 2022, I was watching (on YouTube) Timothy Snyder’s Yale class series “The Making of Modern Ukraine”.  (Link)  One of Dr. Snyder’s points was that Ukraine, because it had been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, had undergone the process that many European countries had, evolving from absolute monarchy to rights for the upper classes to rights, and the rule of law, for everyone.  (Dr. Snyder did not mention England, but I’ll mention that in the 16th century, Henry VIII could execute anyone who annoyed him.  By the 17th century, Charles I could not spend significant money without dealing with Parliament.)

    Nicholas II (possibly the most stupid and incompetent man to ever hold absolute power) could bring russia into WW1 on his sole say-so.

    russia has been an absolute monarchy or absolute dictatorship (a distinction without a difference) since forever with the very short exception of the Yeltsin years.  And, most unfortunately, those years were horrific for most russians, due to the ruthless application of Bush41/Thatcher libertarian economics.  I can’t believe that experience recommended democracy to the russian people.

    I’m inclined to think that it’s very hard to bring large scale democracy to countries without previous experience of mini-democracy:  village level voting, gradual expansion of the rule of law recognizing some human rights.  What to do about russia, I cannot imagine.

  15. 15.

    livewyre

    Not a sociologist, but great post. Also have to confess to a level of armchair fascination with the “kill em all” self-caricature at the top of the thread – it seems almost aimed at collapsing such distinctions as the one among different ethnicities in Russia and the tensions and power relations between them. Almost like the treatment of minorities there (or anywhere) would be inconvenient to pay too much attention to. Might as well keep pointing it out and see what happens.

  16. 16.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Andrya: Oh, this is very interesting, and might answer the question I posed on Wednesday.  I haven’t (yet) watched Dr. Snyder’s lectures.  I guess I will have to remedy that omission.  Thank you so much!

  17. 17.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Anonymous at Work: Bakhmut is largely Wagner.

    It was reported at the time, but French transferred the HIMARS the third week of November, so I’m not sure why it’s suddenly getting posted as if it just happened. As for ATACMS, I’ve never seen it reported that the French have any.

  19. 19.

    tokyocali (formerly tokyo ex-pat)

    @Andrya:  Thank you. I had a feeling that proximity to Europe might be one significant factor in Ukraine’s transformation. I don’t see how change can happen unless Russia is broken up and how likely is that to happen?

  20. 20.

    Adam L Silverman

    @NutmegAgain: This is early 20th century sociology, after the 19th century split into anthropology and sociology, but before the other social sciences would splinter off of sociology. And before sociology and criminology became more and more distinct.

  21. 21.

    Inventor

    @jackmac: Also, in a link the Ukrainian defense minister warns Russian men that shortly after the New Year there will be another round of forced conscription, border closings and even martial law.

    I don’t think the Minister would have spoken with such specificity unless his intel was very good. It’s horrific to think how many will be dead shortly thereafter.

  23. 23.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Matt McIrvin: I did define it. And that one you found is a terrible definition that misses the complexity, breadth, depth, and scope of what Sutherland was describing.

  24. 24.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Adam L Silverman: Adam, would an example of differential social organization be the way that the police and citizenry interact when the latter are white, vs. when the latter are black?  That is to say, there’s an entirely different set of rules.  Or Jim Crow — maybe that’s another example?

    In which case, maybe what you’re describing is that even to this day, ordinary Russians are treated by the power elites as serfs: disposable, not actual ends, but mere means/tools.  And when serfs know this (which they do), it changes how they treat the elites, and how they treat each other.

  25. 25.

    Another Scott

    VOANews.com update for today:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping vowed Friday to strengthen their bilateral cooperation. During their opening remarks on a publicly broadcast videoconference, the two leaders welcomed strengthening ties between Moscow and Beijing amid what they called “geopolitical tensions” and a “difficult international situation,” with Putin expressing his wish to extend military collaboration.

    “In the face of increasing geopolitical tensions, the significance of the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership is growing as a stabilizing factor,” he said.

    [ image ]

    Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks with Chinese President Xi Jinping via a video conference at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 30, 2022.

    Putin added that he expected Xi to visit Moscow in the spring. Such a trip “will demonstrate to the whole world the strength of the Russian-Chinese ties on key issues, will become the main political event of the year in bilateral relations,” he said.

    Xi said through a translator that “in the face of a difficult and far from straightforward international situation,” Beijing was ready “to increase strategic cooperation with Russia, provide each other with development opportunities, be global partners for the benefit of the peoples of our countries and in the interests of stability around the world.”

    But an official Chinese transcript of the video summit between the two leaders highlighted differences in their approach to their developing alliance, making no mention of Xi’s visit to Moscow and stressing that Beijing, which has declined to back or condemn the invasion, would maintain its “objective and fair” stance.

    The U.S. expressed concern about the Russian-China rapprochement.

    “We are monitoring Beijing’s activity closely,” a State Department spokesperson said. “Beijing claims to be neutral, but its behavior makes it clear, it is still investing in close ties to Russia.”

    U.S. officials have repeatedly said they have yet to see Beijing provide material support to Russia on its invasion on Ukraine, a move that could provoke sanctions against China.

    (Emphasis added.)

    I’m not surprised that Xi is trying to keep his options open.

    2023 is apparently going to be yet more interesting times. China is seemingly going to have huge issues with COVID-19 infections this winter (how can they not??) and who knows what the impact of that will be in 2023. The world economy being hit with renewed supply-chain issues as a result, and potential sanctions if the US sees Xi going too far helping VVP, could make 2023 another challenging year on many fronts.

    Thanks Adam. Feel better.

    Slava Ukraini!!

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  27. 27.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Another Scott: Awwww…. well. here’s the MSN link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/teary-bolsonaro-calls-loss-unfair-condemns-violence-flies-to-florida/ar-AA15OoXO

    SÃO PAULO — Two days before leaving office, ending a tumultuous four years as the race-baiting, Amazon-developing, coronavirus-downplaying, vaccine-skeptical leader of Latin America’s largest country, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro remained defiant in a teary farewell address on Friday, defending his record and saying the election that led to his ouster was not impartial, but condemning violence against the result.

    Ah,  well.  I found the tweet using an image-search of the image that Drudgereport.com used alongside the above link.  So I figured the image had come from the original article.  Ah, well.  My bad.

  28. 28.

    Andrya

    @tokyocali (formerly tokyo ex-pat):  Like you, I have no idea what to do about russia.  However, I’m not sure what you mean by “proximity to Europe”.  If that means physical proximity, I’d say that democracies in Japan, Taiwan, and India show that a democracy need not be located geographically near Europe.  If it means “near Europe in terms of communications and cultural influence”, well, today every country is near every other country in that sense

    I see no way that russia could be broken up, which is why I have no idea what to do about russia.  Anyway, thanks for the kind words!

  29. 29.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Chetan Murthy: Yes, those all fit. Most criminologists use a much more narrow application so they wouldn’t necessarily agree, but I’m multi-disciplinarily trained, so I have a somewhat broader view of the theory’s explanatory utility.

  30. 30.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Another Scott: Russia’s national wealth fund announced late yesterday that they’re rebalancing their portfolio. 60% Yuen, 40% gold. They’ve zeroed out Euros and Japanese Yen.

  32. 32.

    Carlo Graziani

    @Adam L Silverman: I’m completely innocent of sociological knowledge, so I have to resort to following the scholarly breadcrumbs through the usual resources and keyword searches. However, if I’m interpreting what I’m seeing correctly, the sociological framework that you’ve invoked here—Sutherland’s theory of differential association—is a theory in criminology.  Is the use of the theory to for the broader analytic purpose of interpreting whole societies such as Russia a standard application, or are you proposing it yourself as an interpretive framework?

  33. 33.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Another Scott: That was an excellent thread!  Thank you for posting it here.  I esp liked her detailed explanation for why all choices are dangerous: not providing better weapons will lead to escalation, just as providing better weapons might lead to escalation also.

    But of course, one of the two will save Ukrainian lives, and the other will cost them

    ETA:OK, maybe not detailed, but still, forcefully argued.

  34. 34.

    Citizen Alan

    @Andrya:

    And, most unfortunately, those years were horrific for most russians, due to the ruthless application of Bush41/Thatcher libertarian economics.  I can’t believe that experience recommended democracy to the russian people.

    I will never stop being angry over that squandered opportunity. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the West had a choice. Should we focus our efforts on helping Russia to become a democracy? Or should we focus on helping it to become capitalistic? We (for some definitions of “we”) chose the latter, with a total disregard the dangers of what a marriage of capitalism and authoritarianism could become.

  35. 35.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Carlo Graziani: Sutherland was, like all almost all criminologists at the time, a sociologist. And yes, I apply it much more broadly than any other criminologist because I’m 1) multi-disciplinarily trained and 2) I do very different work than most criminologists. As a result I pull from empirical social and behavioral science theories in ways that they would not be used within the narrow confines of academia and the silos that wall of the social and behavioral science disciplines within it.

  36. 36.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Citizen Alan: I could be wrong, but I think there was no possibility of trying to help Russia become democratic: the thieves-in-law were thoroughly burrowed-into the KGB, and they were going to take over the carcass of the USSR no matter what we did or wanted.

  38. 38.

    Citizen Alan

    @Chetan Murthy: Probably true, but we could have at least tried.

    On the bright side, the reference to Thatcher and Bush I in the post I was replying to did bring a smile to my face, as it reminded me that those two vile people are both dead.

  40. 40.

    Chetan Murthy

    @sab: and, last I noticed, taking Russia’s side in most arguments about this war.  I guess he must have raped some underage girls in Russia, too.

  41. 41.

    Carlo Graziani

    @Citizen Alan: I do agree that the West completely misunderstood and misused its “victory” in the Cold War. But I don’t agree that there was anything that the West could have been done to help Russia even if its collective head had not been up its ass.  The internal political pathologies and chaos that were associated with the Yeltsin government’s dismantling of the USSR’s legacy were simply not consistent with any kind of transition to a stable democratic regime, no matter what kind of outside assistance was offered.  It was just a slowly unfolding, inevitable tragedy.

  42. 42.

    sab

    @Chetan Murthy: I am more interested in what he did do, which was assist in privatizing everything when they didn’t have the appropriate legal structures in place, hence handing everything over to the oligarchs.

    Very different from the way China chose ro go.

  43. 43.

    Carlo Graziani

    @sab: There was, in the universe that we inhabit, no possibility of a disposition of the USSR’s assets that did not enrich a privileged power elite of some sort. The idea that they could be somehow “privatized” in some kind of orderly proceeding, like an auction, where citizens would show up and bid for them and then truck them away so as to turn them into productive parts of a new Russian economy, was always a simplistic fantasy.  There was going to be a feeding frenzy, and the only question was which one of the sharks got the biggest morsels.  Blaming Sachs for the outcome is simply absurd.

  44. 44.

    Chetan Murthy

    @sab: The people who acquired those assets were typically the managers of those assets, mobsters (thieves-in-law) or KGB officers.  That is to say, the nobility of the USSR.  Whatever happened, it was going to be those people who controlled those assets: there was no mechanism whereby things could have turned out differently.

    Lots has been written about how the USSR became riven-thru with mobsters: how Stalin found them useful tools for running his empire, and from there, well, they decided to take control of as much of it as they could.  Sure, Sachs could have not involved himself, and I’d have preferred that.  But regardless of what we did,  the same thieves were going to take control.  B/c they were running things already.

  46. 46.

    BellyCat

    Differentially socially organized. Explains more than Russia.
    See: Rural (GOP) and urban (Dem) America.

  47. 47.

    Chetan Murthy

    @sab:

    Very different from the way China chose ro go.

    I’d say it’s different because the PRC Communist Party never lost control like the CPSU did.  And sure, for a while under Deng Xiaoping the PRC encouraged small enterprises, real entrepreneurship.  But I’ve read that after some period of that, they started cracking down, funnelling all capital to large state enterprises, and at this point, most of the economy is these large state-owned enterprises.  And who owns all those?  Why, CCP functionaries, their relatives, their children (“princelings”).

    The only real difference I see, is that things didn’t fall apart.  The disposition of assets?  Ehh, pretty much the same.

  48. 48.

    way2blue

    @tokyocali (formerly tokyo ex-pat):

    I’ve been wondering something similar.  I’m up to lecture #8 of Timothy Snyder’s ‘The Making of Modern Ukraine’ and its history has been a series of different groups pushing into Ukraine and setting up shop. The Greeks, the Byzantines, the Vikings, the Mongols, the Teutonic knights, the Slavs…  All structured as autocracies, some persisting for hundreds of years.  Yet today only the Russian Federation, it seems, has evolved into such a corrupt & depraved society.  A society composed of sociopaths.  Hardwired it seems.

  49. 49.

    Aussie Sheila

    @way2blue: I disagree that it is a society ‘composed of sociopaths’. It is a low trust, authoritarian country that has always been looted by its elites.

    Earlier this year I started listening to Mike Duncan’s Russian Revolution podcast. The great strength of that podcast is not so much the well known history of the events leading to 1917, but the well told detail of Russian society, its structures, economy and politics through the 19thC up to 1917.

    I only had a very schematic idea of the depth of Russian backwardness compared to the rest of Europe, although I knew about it in a broad sense. I recommend the podcast for those insights alone.  Contemporary Russia bears all the hallmarks of its past history.
    This leads me to think that for many societies, geography and the economic, political and social organisation that it either promotes or hampers ensures a certain ‘path dependency’ that is very difficult to alter by any society.

    In any case, Russia must be soundly defeated in this war, pay reparations and prepare for its elites to be tried as war criminals. I don’t think that will change Russia, but justice must be meted out, if for no other reason than to teach other would be adventurists a lesson.

  50. 50.

    Carlo Graziani

    @way2blue: I would push back a bit on this. Something has changed in Russia since Soviet days. The nature of societal corruption under Soviet society was of a more corporate nature. That system was deadening, but it had ideological coherence, millions believed in it, and it was capable of producing a systematic driving political and economic force. We were scared of the Soviets for very good reasons.

    Today’s Russia is nothing like that. The societal corruption is a rotting-from-the-head kleptocracy, which is still corruption, but of a very different sort, and far more corrosive to national purposes.  Nobody in Russia can see the point of behaving in a patriotic manner (other than performatively), because, after all, all public officials are conspicuous for using their power to monetize their offices, from Putin on down.  Everything is for sale, and nobody even pretends that the official nationalist ideology is worth the insufficiently soft and absorbent paper that Putin prints his paeans to it on.  There is no unifying national idea in Russia. Putin’s nationalism, and that of the foaming-at-the-mouth milbloggers, are just so much froth.  None of it represents people willing to grab a rifle and run to the front themselves to defend anything they truly believe in.

    Putinism broke something.  Russia used to be an “ordinarily corrupt” nation of believers in a (dumb) ideology. Now it’s the most extraordinary kleptocracy that the world has ever seen, bar none.

  51. 51.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Carlo Graziani: Carlo, are you sure that it wasn’t like this in Soviet times?  I mean, there was a difference, which was that the kleptocrats couldn’t move their assets to the West.  But otherwise, wasn’t there a lot of corruption in the USSR ?  The way I heard it, Stalin found that the thieves-in-law were useful to run his gulags for him, and then, well, when WWII came, he brought them out to run his factories.  They were efficient at doing that, and voila! they got their start in in the Party apparatus.

    Decades later, they were firmly-entrenched.  So sure corruption is worse.  But (setting aside the fact that they can send their assets to the West) is it really *different* ?

    And then, well, the rest of the societal rot that that “Why does Russia suck” paper describes, and that Kamil Galeev describes, and that Window on Eurasia has chronicled all thru Covid …. that’s at all levels of society.  It’s not just at the top.  I mean, the trope of Russian drivers needing dashcams for a reason (other drivers and pedestrians perpetrating insurance fraud on them) is real for a reason.

  53. 53.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Carlo Graziani: Stalin’s brutality, corruption and reliance on thugs and bandits was exactly the path dependence I meant. At the risk of caricaturist summary, his so called ‘revolutionary’ past was exactly the same as a Georgian revolutionary. Not just bank heists and the like (which maybe justified in some circumstances), but tactical and strategic alliances with a whole criminal underworld as well as cooperation with the police when necessary. The whole history of radical opposition to Russian autocracy in the late C19th to earlyC20th century is replete with such relationships and examples.
    Again, a very different trajectory from radical movements in the more advanced parts of Europe.

    The podcast series has led me to reevaluate a lot of how I think about the way nations and peoples ‘imagine’ and live their histories.

  54. 54.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Chetan Murthy:

    ‘The disposition of assets pretty much the same’

    I disagree wrt China. Corruption? Sure. Just like your society and mine, albeit to a lesser extent. But the PRC has done an immeasurably better job of lifting people out of poverty than any Russian government, before or after 1917.

    I have no admiration for Xi’s authoritarian and megalomaniacal impulses. But I don’t think it is right to compare the job the PRC has done with the execrable results of 73 years of the Bolsheviks in Russia. YMMV.

  56. 56.

    Ruckus

    @tokyocali (formerly tokyo ex-pat):

    It’s not the size of Russia.

    It’s the corruption, it’s the very top of the heap being billionaires while the average salary is $20,000. And a lot of people likely don’t come close to that. They supposedly had a huge army that was going to go into Ukraine and destroy it in 3 days. How’s that working out for Russia? Sure they are destroying Ukraine infrastructure and all but the only reason they are doing that is so that Ukraine will be worthless. If they can’t have it, they don’t want anyone else to. vlad is destroying his country for his ego. But until Russia itself changes it will always be a 5th rate country. At best. And it’s structure effectively makes the necessary change impossible. It’s citizens effectively have to overthrow the upper level of power, and it’s quite likely there is no way the common citizens can do that. Maybe if better than 90% of the Russian military is lost in Ukraine it might be possible but then there is always the secret police, the ones that keep vlad and friends alive and wealthy.

  57. 57.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Ruckus:

    But the siloviki can’t control the whole forever. Once things go south, they will be looking to their own situation. They  are corrupt as well and without any real ideological anchors, they will sway in the winds that blow. The whole situation reminds me of the saying ‘.. bankrupt.. gradually, then all at once’.
    I don’t know, and nor does anyone else, how long it will take, but Putin’s regime will collapse. No nation, even one as fucked as Russia can survive the strains this misbegotten crime will land on its ruling elite and it’s people.

  58. 58.

    Ruckus

    @Aussie Sheila:

    I believe you are correct, at some point it will collapse upon itself.

    The problem is that it’s so corrupt that there is likely very few outside of the already wealthy that could take over. They have been under the thumb for so long that it’s likely few will know how or what to do to take over. And it’s so much dog eat dog that who is going to arise out of the low level corruption and decide to build a new government? Because until someone does that there will be no structural change in the country. Those that steal enough to be able to purchase safety and luxury are a big and powerful enough to slide into place when vlad kicks and carry on with the status quo. Which is basically what Russia has been for a very long time. It’s the structure of those at the top that changed and that changed to very wealthy controllers of the status quo who aren’t going to go easy. Russia is like a state controlled mafia. And that mafia has enough power and control to last a long time and very limited competition.

  59. 59.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Ruckus: I agree Russia is a mafia state, unlike anything we have seen in the modern world, save for fascist regimes of the 1930s and perhaps Saddam Hussain’s regime in Iraq. Nonetheless, once it blows, it will blow, big time.

    This time around there will be a considerable amount of pushback against the oligarchs, and the scope for mischief from all sides in Russian politics will be epic. I fully expect Ukrainian as well as domestic opposition forces will create havoc for any successor regime that looks like anything remotely close to the current regime. We will see.

    But first, military victory to the Ukrainian people, and Russia out of all Ukrainian sovereign territory!

  60. 60.

    NobodySpecial

    Adam, thank you for the update. I confess that I’m worried about Bakhmut collapsing under the pressure. How likely is a Russian breakthrough, do you estimate?

  61. 61.

    Geminid

    @Andrya: George Kennan began one of his essays with a passage from a letter a diplomat sent home about his dealings with Russian officials. They were, the diplomat wrote, aloof, distrustful, xenophobic, and opaque in a way officials he had dealt with in other countries were not. He described a difference not in degree but in kind.

    Then Kennan provided the kicker: this was an English envoy to Russia writing in something like 1657. Kennan observed that this characterization of Russians could easily have been written in the mid-20th century, by an American diplomat describing the Soviets.

    The point is that Russia’s political culture diverged from that of Europe long ago, or rather, did not converge as did those of European nations.

    Why was this? Perhaps the influence of the Roman Empire. One historian of the Holy Roman Empire emphasized that the “barbarian” leaders who invaded the Roman empire in its latter days did not extinguish the Empire’s traditions of governance but instead adopted them and adapted them to both lands the Empire had ruled and lands such as Germany that it had not.

    The Eastern Roman Empire withstood the barbarian attacks that felled the Western Empire in after 500 AD, and it evolved differently afterwards. The Byzantine Empire seems to have absorbed much of the political culture of earlier eastern empires. Accounts of the Byzantine emperors often resemble those of ancient Asian monarchs like Cambyses and Solomon in the ruthless absolutism described. The Hellenist kingdoms before them underwent a transformation similar to that of the Byzantine Romans, I think.

    This political culture may have been a large portion of Russia’s inheritance, and might explain part of their difference from Western and westernized nations.

    All this is speculation, of course. But regardless of why, I think it is a fact that Russia and Russians different with respect to inherent political culture. This tells me that plans for Russia’s future should not include transforming or “Westernizing” the country and its political culture but rather cutting them down to geopolitical size as best we can- and right now they seem to have started that job.

    Then we will have to contain them until they can transform themselves. That will be a multigenerational project, but so was the policy of containment of the Soviet Union that George Kennan advocated and that was adopted by his superiors and their successors.

  62. 62.

    Gvg

    It appears that Russia may have corrupted itself into hollow bankruptcy and it doesn’t have enough intimidation power anymore. If Ukraine successfully breaks away, the other still conquered parts of Russia will also begin resisting. Submissive partners will look for other Ally’s or start acting more dominate. Some of the regions will start approaching the west for help or trade, particularly the parts that used to be Russian dominated I am guessing. Poland for instance stood up for Ukraine…Russia treated every part of “itself” except Moscow terribly. I think it is possible that all the rest of Russia may break itself up and that we couldn’t do anything to stop it even if we wanted to. Maybe we don’t need to make a plan for them which they would be bound to resent and resist anyway.
    I would still make multiple contingency plans of how to help if this then that though. Some of them would involve trying to show we didn’t cause them to do this, they did it to themselves. Don’t know if that will work though. Blaming others is always easier.

  63. 63.

    oldster

    “…the state has been some variant of authoritarian, the society has been hierarchical, and the people running the place – from nobility to senior party officials to siloviki and oligarchs – have consistently transferred the wealth upward and then pocketed it.”

    So, the way that Balloon Juice is run by Steve.

  64. 64.

    Eduardo

    @Chetan Murthy: I believe the same thing.  How could the West make Russia a democracy? That is something that only Russians can make themselves.  Agency, people, agency.  And history.

  65. 65.

    Gin & Tonic

    @Gvg:

    Poland for instance stood up for Ukraine

    A Polish friend said “of course we have to help, otherwise we’re next.”

  66. 66.

    davecb

    @oldster: ​

    “…the state has been some variant of authoritarian, the society has been hierarchical, and the people running the place – from nobility to senior party officials to siloviki and oligarchs – have consistently transferred the wealth upward and then pocketed it.”

    So, the way that Balloon Juice is run by Steve.

    (:-))

    That also reminds me of several large companies I have either worked for or consulted to.

  68. 68.

    Carlo Graziani

    @Chetan Murthy: There was indeed a great deal of “corruption” in the USSR. What I’m pointing out is that not all corruption is the same.

    Take Iran, for example. There is endemic corruption in Iran, and as measured by independent international nonprofit monitors it is one of the nations with the most corrupt institutions on Earth. But nonetheless the Iranian government has succeeded (perhaps until very recently) in maintaining the loyalty of millions of its citizens to its despicable ideology. That ideology undoubtedly animates the actions of many government bureaucrats, soldiers, judges, scientists, engineers, and so on. It makes Iran an effective nation-state, and a thorn in the side of its regional opponents, and of the US.

    Similarly, the USSR was a ripely corrupt state, where a bottle of vodka or a box of chocolates delivered to the right place at the right time could take care of a timely automotive repair, or document renewal.  But there can be no possible doubt that millions of Soviet citizens were genuine believers in Marxism-Leninism, actually believed that they were part of some world-historical movement destined to lead the globe out of its blinkered capitalist dead end, and saw nothing extraordinary in the circumstances of Soviet civil society, as appalling as they appear to us.  That belief gave the Soviets enough commitment of people willing to work for the state in many capacities to make the empire a genuine threat to the entire world, in a way that modern Russia simply is not.

    Because, I would argue, nobody in Russia actually believes in Russia anymore, the way that many Soviet citizens were animated by Marxism-Leninism.  The “corruption” of Russia today should not be compared to the corruption that existed back then. It is corruption of a far more corrosive and destructive nature, in my opinion. It is literally eating the state from the inside, because there is nothing animating the state to hold it together.

    Today’s Russian corruption is the Russian idea, despite what Putin may say. He’s attempted to hawk a Russian 19th Century imperialist revival and draw on those older Eastern Orthodox themes, melded with a veneer of modernity for palatability as the new Russian Dream, but the Russian Dream that he has modeled with his personal behavior is that of skimming money off every state revenue stream in sight, and allowing every senior state official to do the same.  Their subordinates have less access and freedom with large contracts, but still get to help themselves to large servings. Their subordinates must content themselves with leftovers. After that there’s the people who sell the silverware and furniture, and so on, down through the entire society.

    Remember the clairvoyantly-good intelligence on Russian intentions that the Biden administration had in November 2021? I’m pretty sure that all they had to do is buy it.  Just offer a lot of cash, or a nice house in Switzerland, or college education for some kids in the US.  The CIA has the budget, and the expertise, and it’s a buyer’s market in Moscow.

    And that’s the tell:  the USSR was once the hardest intelligence target ever.  KGB counterintelligence was really, really good at what they did.  A Soviet mole was a rare, priceless asset, worth keeping secret from the President, and with a life expectancy measured in months.  In 2022, Russian moles are dollar-store checkout-counter items.  That’s Putinism for you.

  69. 69.

    Carlo Graziani

    @Geminid: On the difference in the Russian outlook on the world, one way to be deeply struck by it is to engage with Dostoevsky. His prose is beautiful and he sets up some truly breathtaking scenes, but his characters, despite their deep humanity, continually strike me as near-aliens in their motivations for their actions. This is not because of their removal in time: Dickens, or Austen draw far more familiar characters.

    Also, one can find echoes of the toxic Russian particularism even in this gentlest of authors. Here is a monologue by Prince Myshkin, excerpted from Chapter 7, Book 4 of The Idiot:

    “How do you make out that the Roman Catholic religion is unchristian? What is it, then?” asked Ivan Petrovitch, turning to the prince.

    “It is not a Christian religion, in the first place,” said the latter, in extreme agitation, quite out of proportion to the necessity of the moment. “And in the second place, Roman Catholicism is, in my opinion, worse than Atheism itself. Yes—that is my opinion. Atheism only preaches a negation, but Romanism goes further; it preaches a disfigured, distorted Christ—it preaches Anti-Christ—I assure you, I swear it! This is my own personal conviction, and it has long distressed me. The Roman Catholic believes that the Church on earth cannot stand without universal temporal Power. He cries ‘non possumus!’ In my opinion the Roman Catholic religion is not a faith at all, but simply a continuation of the Roman Empire, and everything is subordinated to this idea—beginning with faith. The Pope has seized territories and an earthly throne, and has held them with the sword. And so the thing has gone on, only that to the sword they have added lying, intrigue, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, swindling;—they have played fast and loose with the most sacred and sincere feelings of men;—they have exchanged everything—everything for money, for base earthly power! And is this not the teaching of Anti-Christ? How could the upshot of all this be other than Atheism? Atheism is the child of Roman Catholicism—it proceeded from these Romans themselves, though perhaps they would not believe it. It grew and fattened on hatred of its parents; it is the progeny of their lies and spiritual feebleness. Atheism! In our country it is only among the upper classes that you find unbelievers; men who have lost the root or spirit of their faith; but abroad whole masses of the people are beginning to profess unbelief—at first because of the darkness and lies by which they were surrounded; but now out of fanaticism, out of loathing for the Church and Christianity!”

    The prince paused to get breath. He had spoken with extraordinary rapidity, and was very pale.

    All present interchanged glances, but at last the old dignitary burst out laughing frankly. Prince N. took out his eye-glass to have a good look at the speaker. The German poet came out of his corner and crept nearer to the table, with a spiteful smile.

    “You exaggerate the matter very much,” said Ivan Petrovitch, with rather a bored air. “There are, in the foreign Churches, many representatives of their faith who are worthy of respect and esteem.”

    “Oh, but I did not speak of individual representatives. I was merely talking about Roman Catholicism, and its essence—of Rome itself. A Church can never entirely disappear; I never hinted at that!”

    “Agreed that all this may be true; but we need not discuss a subject which belongs to the domain of theology.”

    “Oh, no; oh, no! Not to theology alone, I assure you! Why, Socialism is the progeny of Romanism and of the Romanistic spirit. It and its brother Atheism proceed from Despair in opposition to Catholicism. It seeks to replace in itself the moral power of religion, in order to appease the spiritual thirst of parched humanity and save it; not by Christ, but by force. ‘Don’t dare to believe in God, don’t dare to possess any individuality, any property! Fraternité ou la Mort; two million heads. ‘By their works ye shall know them’—we are told. And we must not suppose that all this is harmless and without danger to ourselves. Oh, no; we must resist, and quickly, quickly! We must let our Christ shine forth upon the Western nations, our Christ whom we have preserved intact, and whom they have never known. Not as slaves, allowing ourselves to be caught by the hooks of the Jesuits, but carrying our Russian civilization to them, we must stand before them, not letting it be said among us that their preaching is ‘skilful,’ as someone expressed it just now.”

    “But excuse me, excuse me;” cried Ivan Petrovitch considerably disturbed, and looking around uneasily. “Your ideas are, of course, most praiseworthy, and in the highest degree patriotic; but you exaggerate the matter terribly. It would be better if we dropped the subject.”

    “No, sir, I do not exaggerate, I understate the matter, if anything, undoubtedly understate it; simply because I cannot express myself as I should like, but—”

    “Allow me!”

    The prince was silent. He sat straight up in his chair and gazed fervently at Ivan Petrovitch.

    “It seems to me that you have been too painfully impressed by the news of what happened to your good benefactor,” said the old dignitary, kindly, and with the utmost calmness of demeanour. “You are excitable, perhaps as the result of your solitary life. If you would make up your mind to live more among your fellows in society, I trust, I am sure, that the world would be glad to welcome you, as a remarkable young man; and you would soon find yourself able to look at things more calmly. You would see that all these things are much simpler than you think; and, besides, these rare cases come about, in my opinion, from ennui and from satiety.”

    “Exactly, exactly! That is a true thought!” cried the prince. “From ennui, from our ennui but not from satiety! Oh, no, you are wrong there! Say from thirst if you like; the thirst of fever! And please do not suppose that this is so small a matter that we may have a laugh at it and dismiss it; we must be able to foresee our disasters and arm against them. We Russians no sooner arrive at the brink of the water, and realize that we are really at the brink, than we are so delighted with the outlook that in we plunge and swim to the farthest point we can see. Why is this? You say you are surprised at Pavlicheff’s action; you ascribe it to madness, to kindness of heart, and what not, but it is not so.

    “Our Russian intensity not only astonishes ourselves; all Europe wonders at our conduct in such cases! For, if one of us goes over to Roman Catholicism, he is sure to become a Jesuit at once, and a rabid one into the bargain. If one of us becomes an Atheist, he must needs begin to insist on the prohibition of faith in God by force, that is, by the sword. Why is this? Why does he then exceed all bounds at once? Because he has found land at last, the fatherland that he sought in vain before; and, because his soul is rejoiced to find it, he throws himself upon it and kisses it! Oh, it is not from vanity alone, it is not from feelings of vanity that Russians become Atheists and Jesuits! But from spiritual thirst, from anguish of longing for higher things, for dry firm land, for foothold on a fatherland which they never believed in because they never knew it. It is easier for a Russian to become an Atheist, than for any other nationality in the world. And not only does a Russian ‘become an Atheist,’ but he actually believes in Atheism, just as though he had found a new faith, not perceiving that he has pinned his faith to a negation. Such is our anguish of thirst! ‘Whoso has no country has no God.’ That is not my own expression; it is the expression of a merchant, one of the Old Believers, whom I once met while travelling. He did not say exactly these words. I think his expression was:

    “‘Whoso forsakes his country forsakes his God.’

    “But let these thirsty Russian souls find, like Columbus’ discoverers, a new world; let them find the Russian world, let them search and discover all the gold and treasure that lies hid in the bosom of their own land! Show them the restitution of lost humanity, in the future, by Russian thought alone, and by means of the God and of the Christ of our Russian faith, and you will see how mighty and just and wise and good a giant will rise up before the eyes of the astonished and frightened world; astonished because they expect nothing but the sword from us, because they think they will get nothing out of us but barbarism. This has been the case up to now, and the longer matters go on as they are now proceeding, the more clear will be the truth of what I say; and I—”

    That sense of mission…

  70. 70.

    oldster

    @Carlo Graziani:

    I agree with you about the two axes of corruption, i.e. disregard for the procedural rules on the one hand versus alienation from the motivating project on the other hand.

    “Because, I would argue, nobody in Russia actually believes in Russia anymore, the way that many Soviet citizens were animated by Marxism-Leninism.  The “corruption” of Russia today should not be compared to the corruption that existed back then. It is corruption of a far more corrosive and destructive nature, in my opinion. It is literally eating the state from the inside, because there is nothing animating the state to hold it together.”

    This is what most scares me about MAGA. Many people in America — not a majority yet — do not believe in America any more. They no longer feel allegiance to the project of advancing the American ideals of democracy and justice. They no longer agree that the American system is better than Putin’s system.

    The car dealer who bribes the state inspector — that’s bad, but we can survive it. The car dealer who follows Tucker’s outright worship of Putin and doesn’t care if America loses — that’s a lot harder to survive. That’s what scares me.

  71. 71.

    Jinchi

    @Chetan Murthy: ​  ordinary Russians are treated by the power elites as serfs: disposable, not actual ends, but mere means/tools.

    The whole mobilization and recruitment effort is pretty explicit, Join the war so you can buy your teenage daughter a cell phone. Buy a new car with survivor’s benefits when your son dies in battle. Freeze your sperm for free so your widow can raise your legacy as a single mom.

    Who’s the audience for all that?

    And Prigorzhin is pretty explicit about this in his recruitment of prisoners, ‘Most of you will die, and we’ll execute anyone who changes his mind, but those who survive will have all their crimes pardoned.’

    That’s his sales-pitch!​​​

  72. 72.

    NutmegAgain

    @Adam L Silverman: Right-o. I did a quick brush up on Chicago School, and recognized GH Mead, and of course Jane Addams. I was mostly familiar with the second one, one of the people I studied with worked with Howie Becker, and of course Erving Goffman. I was mainly subjected to the mental circus of the Frankfurt School and its antecedents–Kant, Hegel, Marx (so much Marx!), all the enlightenment guys, right up through the more modern unpronounceables. And then of course all the Post- things: post-structural, post-modern, post-grand narrative, Post-raisin bran.

    Much more related to the topic at hand, I believe I read that Jürgen Habermas is (like similarly-aged Noam Chomsky) against the idea of sending military aid to Ukraine because (the US has done bad things on the world stage at some point in history). That attitude really ticks me off, all the more so from somebody that people look to as some kind of thought leader.

  73. 73.

    oldster

    @NutmegAgain:

    Habermas, like Merkel, has clung to a particular kind of optimistic naïveté far too long. There was a time, several decades ago, when it may have seemed plausible that welcoming Russia with open arms and endless accommodation would make Europeans out of oligarchs. “Change through trade” (Wandel durch Handel) was not merely a fig-leaf for industrial/capital convenience: it was a heartfelt belief among the German intelligentsia that other nations were capable of the kind of change of heart that Germany itself had undergone after WWII. They were not wrong to think it in 1990; they are wrong to think it now.

    By now, Russia’s power elite has shown that it has no more interest in reform than Huck Finn’s dad, of whom the preacher said, “He said he reckoned a body could reform the old man with a shotgun, maybe, but he didn’t know no other way.”

  74. 74.

    Andrya

    @Geminid:  The Kennan story is fascinating, thanks.

    I would maintain, though not a historian nor an expert, that the Germanic invaders of Europe did alter European culture in one important way:  the status of women was higher in Germanic barbarian culture than in either ancient Greece or Rome and that left a permanent mark.

    To get this in pure form-  unaffected by Roman culture- read the Icelandic sagas: such characters as  Hallgerðr in Njal’s saga, or Freydis the sister of Leif Erikson go about making deals, organizing expeditions, fighting, and arranging murders.  They have agency (albeit barbaric) in a way no ancient Greek or Roman woman did.

Comments are closed.