Olesya Krivtsova, a first-year university student from the northern Russian city of Arkhangelsk, is facing more than 10 years in a penal colony for publicly opposing the war in Ukraine on social media.
Krivtsova, 19, stand accused of âjustifying terrorismâ and repeatedly âdiscrediting the Russian armed forcesâ for posts she made on her personal page on the Russian social network VKontakte and Instagram.
Russiaâs Wagner mercenary group has launched a youth club aimed at fostering patriotism and preparing young Russians for military service.
The club, called Wagneryonok (âJunior Wagneriteâ), is based at the Wagner Center, the groupâs glass-fronted headquarters and technology center that opened in St. Petersburg in November.
ever notice how all authoritarians eventually skew toward nationalism/facism?
Ever notice how Dilbertarian buffoons can't even spell fascism?
MAGA!
When liberalism is on the march and nationalism is under siege, a nationalist backlash eventually follows. The ensuing competition between these two perspectives is not a fair fight: nationalism wins every time. Not only does liberalism fail to achieve its most ambitious goals, but many of its most important gains are likely to be reversed. Indeed, the great danger is that a resurgent nationalism will not merely restore a workable balance of power between liberalism and nationalism but will instead turn liberal democracies into illiberal democracies or worse.
Nationalism is more powerful than liberalism for three reasons. First, nationalism is more in sync with human nature. Humans are intensely social beings from the beginning, not individuals who start life alone and form social contracts when they are mature. We are all born into social groups that nurture us and protect us. Nations, like other social groups, are primarily survival vehicles that are essential for our well-being. Their common culture allows members to cooperate more easily and effectively, which in turn maximizes their chances of securing the basic necessities of life.
Second, liberalism alone cannot provide the glue that holds disputatious people together in a state, which is a monumental task. The liberal solution for the problem â promoting the norm of tolerance and creating a state that is largely confined to maintaining order and protecting rights â is helpful, but not enough to handle those rancorous differences that invariably arise among individuals and groups in any society. Nationalism is essential for accomplishing that difficult task, because it provides a common culture that helps create bonds between people who often have profound differences over first principles. In brief, liberalism needs nationalism, but nationalism does not need liberalism.
Third, nationalism, unlike liberalism, fulfills important emotional needs. One characteristic of a nation that makes it so special is that it provides its members with an existential narrative. It gives them a strong sense that they are part of an exclusive and exceptional community whose history is filled with important traditions as well as remarkable individuals and events. Furthermore, nationalism promises people that the nation will be there for future generations the way it was there for past generations. In this sense, nationalism is much like religion, which is also adept at weaving the past, present, and future into a seamless web that gives members a sense they are part of a long and rich tradition. This formidable bonding force is absent from liberalism, which has no equivalent
story to tell.
given that there has never been a communist country in the true sense of the word, just autocratic one-party governments masquerading as one, it is just a question of semantics, is it not?
can we just call it (a violence inspired) late stage communism?
ever notice how all authoritarians eventually skew toward nationalism/facism?
far left and far right eventually agree/merge?
hegel/marx inspired nationalism and communism have had plenty of resources, time and most importantly top down strongman control
the disastrous results are really easy to observe
what passes for communism and nationalism today is a reflexive "anti-capitalist" position, blaming everything under the sun on capitalism
not many new ideas, just more of the same silly reheated rhetoric
given that there has never been a communist country in the true sense of the word, just autocratic one-party governments masquerading as one, it is just a question of semantics, is it not?
Yes, you've digressed nicely. Somewhere in all this you have a point?
You keep implying there is a moral symmetry between Russia's invasions of Ukraine and the west's responseâsupplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions. You've gone a bit beyond that, implying that supplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions is sinister, a direct threat to Russia justifying what can generously* called a preemptive war.
There is nothing Ukraine did or could have done to justify Russia's actions. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia. NATO was not a threat to anything but Russia's ambitions of once again dominating eastern Europe.
*Generous to Russia. Outside of Planet Putinâwhere all that matters are Russia's goals, and arguments like yours are just dust to fling in the air to obscure what is plainly happeningâthe attacks on Ukraine are an imperial war of conquest. Something the world had hoped it had seen the last of.
I see, you got nowhere and so it's time to change the subject again. I thought we were doing "But Russia = War crimes!" after suggested US malfeasance.
Ah yes, switch to morality, where you (personally) no doubt claim to hold the high ground.
Nicely qualified/hedged. So then we can argue over what constitutes "a legitimate military target" and who defines/decides/ignores that.
Barton Gellman, a staff writer for the Washington Post, writing
soon after the 1991 conflict, observed that: âSome targets, especially
later in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over
Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself.â Gellman
quoted Colonel John A Warden, deputy director of Air Force strategy,
doctrine and plans: âOne purpose of destroying Iraqâs electrical grid
was that you have imposed a long-term problem on the leadership that it
has to deal with sometime.â Gellman added: âIt gives us long-term
leverage.â
To state the obvious: without an electrical grid, there are no functioning water/sewer plants, hospitals, etc., etc.
Yes, you've digressed nicely. Somewhere in all this you have a point?
You keep implying there is a moral symmetry between Russia's invasions of Ukraine and the west's response—supplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions. You've gone a bit beyond that, implying that supplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions is sinister, a direct threat to Russia justifying what can generously* called a preemptive war.
There is nothing Ukraine did or could have done to justify Russia's actions. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia. NATO was not a threat to anything but Russia's ambitions of once again dominating eastern Europe.
*Generous to Russia. Outside of Planet Putin—where all that matters are Russia's goals, and arguments like yours are just dust to fling in the air to obscure what is plainly happening—the attacks on Ukraine are an imperial war of conquest. Something the world had hoped it had seen the last of.
