Comment by shakow | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shakow | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Putin seems to be the most Stalin-like leader Russia has had since - well, Stalin

I would argue he is much closer to the tsars in the following aspects:

  - incestuous state-church relationship (it took for WWII to happen for Stalin to let a bit of leeway to the Orthodox church) to enforce the state legitimacy;

  - dreams about re-building an imperial Russia directly under Moscow rule (Stalin focused on “Socialism in one country” after the failure of the USSR/Poland war and then went down the “buffer-states belt” policy post-WWII);

  - deliberately exhibits lavish luxury (Stalin had a life style that was closer to wealthy retired US surgeon – by which I mean a couple villas and nice cars – than imperial Archduke)

  - and no realistic, well-anchored long term view for the country – safe for making him and his cronies wealthier (this is not an apology of stalinism and its hundreds of thousands of murdered, but at least Stalin had an idea of where the Soviet Union was, where he wanted it to be, and what was materially required for that).

The Russian Orthodox Church was completely subverted by the KGB and still carries that legacy and purpose. The church never reformed after the USSR went kaput. It is used by Putin to spy on and keep people in line. Putin is also a creature of the KGB.

As an example of the fascist/statist bent of this organization, check out the artwork in this cathedral:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQNs5GUyU4&pp=ygUZcnVzc2lhI...

> The Russian Orthodox Church was completely subverted by the KGB

That's true of the post-WWII, post-Stalin USSR. Up until the big changes of 1941, nearly all churches had been closed, publication of religious texts was forbidden and many popes were deported.

Indeed. And Kiril (patriarch) is just a "former" KGB-agent. Here you can see some Soviet-style photoshopping a $30,000 watch away.

https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...

Conservatism is traditionally a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda. That's also why you nowadays can see the GOP being co opted by the Kremlin, while simultaneously Evangelicals are up in arms behind Trump. Some of these people really think Russia stands for traditional values and demand UA to surrender.

Same occured here before WWII, where Hitler was seen as law&order and would finally do something against undesirable elements from society.

The playbook of strong-men and their servants are boringly predictable. Lhbti-free zones (Orban, Hungary), racial rage, women needs to embrace traditional role, forbidding books, you name it. None of it contributes to society in any meaningful way, but you can get 50% of the USA behind it.

"Nah, he is not really going to do what he says". Yup.

Propagandists do like to co-opt narratives. It's a natural vector for sympathy. In terms of US politics, this has affected both of the main parties over the years. Singling out the GOP here is itself a false narrative. There are surely people in that party who are co-opted, but that is only part of what's going on. The Dems also have their useful idiots.

Speaking of WWII, Joe Kennedy (John's father) was quite useful to the Nazis.

I hope you will agree that we should not distract ourselves by, I believe not intended, false equivalency and whatabouttisms. The situation is too serious.

- We were talking about how conservatism has the weakness that it is particularly prone to siren songs of authoritarians.

- There are more bad things happening in the GOP with respect to the democratic constitutional state, but that is hardly a relief. The Dems might have their own idiots, sure, but there is no equivalency here.

- Perhaps I should not take the bait, but John Kennedy, the president, was not an anti-semite, unlike his father indeed, who was not president.

Leftist and progressive movements are equally prone to authoritarianism. We should be on guard against extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

It is good to be on guard. Extremism is bad for society, be it left or right leaning. But we shouldn't confuse things.

With progressiveness we are talking about progress in human and civil rights towards a more free society.

It does not mean you have to agree with all policies of them. Authoritarianism is a direct contradiction with progressiveness.

> Authoritarianism is a direct contradiction with progressiveness.

Ever heard about this Lenin guy?

Revolutionary `neq` progressive, especially not in our time. If your read up on Lenin and the Revolution no serious human rights advocate today would vouch for that.

But the early USSR was both authoritarian and progressive, with the suppression of nobility privileges, strong improvements to women's rights, legalization of homosexuality, etc.

> no serious human rights advocate today would vouch for that.

This is close to a no true Scotsman argument; virtually no older-than-30y.o. political movement would check all the boxes to be qualified as such.

You are right it had progressive elements and some regressive elements, sure!

'Human progress' would appear to be the most seductive end to justify any means, judging by 20th century.

Hardly. Authoritarianism is what happens when ‘the right things don’t happen’ on their own based on ideology, so they need to be forced.

Like seizing farmland from landowners and forming collectives to farm them instead (USSR).

Or forcing affirmative action despite no identifiable discriminatory actions. Which is literally openly happening right now in the West in tech and other areas.

It’s about forcing reality to confirm to an idealized ‘right’ way, despite objections or resistance - including often ignoring if the final situation/state even works. Example: Chinese Great Leap Forward and rural steel ‘mills’, USSR and collectivism, etc.

> Conservatism is traditionally a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda.

Is there any ideology not prone to this? Seems like a needlessly divisive point to include in this analysis. There is also common patterns in the devolution of progressives and revolutionaries. But that's obvious.

I didn't know it is such a divisive point. You can be perfectly very traditionally religious, but be aware that today's authoritarianism tries to appeal to you. I know first hand.

-------

I will add something. Religious tradition can be a great source and motivator to uphold human values. Let's focus on that.

I propose we move away from the concept of conservatism, as I get the feeling that for the US audience this is too political. Rather, let us answer the question whether we want to do good for our neighbour.

This whole line of discussion is weird - Stalinism and the USSR was the definition of anti-conservative and authoritarian. Literally ideologically leftist to a polar extreme in many ways.

Authoritarians come in all ‘colors’.

I think the confusion stems from mislabeling and the cultural associations that some people have with it. In the US, the term socialist usually means something bad, while in Europe all modern states are build around some concept of democratic socialism.

If I say progressive, some people here might identify that with some mouth foaming marxist that will apologize any non free-market dictator.

Label progressive = human rights , not economic policy.

Any suggestion for a term that works better in your habitat is welcome!

Progressive means things like ‘buy fair trade’ and ‘carbon offsets’ too. And ‘sanction countries with bad human rights’.

It’s also economic policy.

None of that addresses my points either.

> Conservatism is traditionally a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda.

Empirically, a lot of ideologies are a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda, from Nazism through conservantism to the Big Leap Forward through progressism and many others in the middle.

You can't sweep liberalism on the same heap as Nazism. I think that each ideology has it's own weaknesses, but they are not the same.

What I learned from this general discussion though is that politics made a honest civil discourse difficult about these kinds of things.

Instead, we should talk about personally held values rather than sociological phenomena, as these have turned into political shibboleths.

I'm absolutely not sweeping liberalism with nazism, sorry if it came out this way. My point is that I don't see extremism being more characteristic of conservatism than some other ideologies.

Right. Stalin's luxury was the functional luxury that anything would be done for him if he asked, if it was possible at all.

Putin is much more like a monarch: rich to the point that almost nothing makes him feel rich. Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting.

(He probably does excel at shooting)

Or perhaps he's more like an L Ron Hubbard with truly vast resources. Quixotic performative superiority.

> Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting.

That's not about his own psychology, but what the Russian people wanted to see in their leader. Near it's end, the USSR had long been led by decrepit old men, and no small amount of blame for the state of the state was laid on the way the country became a gerontocracy. Public displays of Putin's vigor and virility were important PR/propaganda. They came off as really weird in the west, but we were not the target audience for them.

Furthermore, every successful dictator has to project an image of excellent health.

After all, if your finance chief is loyal because you let him steal $10 million a year and he expects you to be in power for the next 10+ years, that's $100M+ for staying loyal.

If you're in poor health, though, and might only last 2 more years? Your finance chief is going to start thinking about who'll replace you. Earning that replacement's favour might be worth a lot more than the $20M he can expect from you.

Your military chief and police chief and religious chief are having similar thoughts, and before you know it your successor controls the treasury, armed forces and religion and you're forced into retirement or dead.

Granted, you can avoid the problem by having an obvious, powerful and deeply loyal successor. If Putin had a healthy young son he appointed the head of the armed forces he could be ill as much as he likes. But he doesn't have such a successor, so he's got to project an image of excellent health.

He doesn't have a (politically-engaged) biological successor.

But he does have his weird obedient puppy Dmitry Medvedev. Whose plane, I imagine, will have some engine trouble on day one of the post-Putin era.

Agreed. Putin is an admirer of Peter The Great.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com