Is The New York Times Obsessed with Moscow's Oligarch-ettes ?

In the last few weeks, the New York Times has devoted at least four articles to extolling the opulence of the"new" Russia --especially the orgy of conspicious consumption in today's Moscow. It's as if the NYT decided to morph into US Weekly covering the lifestyles of Russia's rich and greedy. Each article exudes a kind of breathless excitement. "Moscow is renewing itself with a vigor and opulence seen in few other places on the planet....Few cities have sloughed off as much leaden history to reinvent themselves."

There's the endless and excited recitation of the fact that Russia now has 53 billionaires (aka oligarchs) worth a total of $282 billion.

A recent article, "Not Down and Out in Moscow," devoted some several thousands of words to the city's annual Millionaire Fair--designed to introduce wealthy Muscovites to foreign luxury brands (Gulfstream jets, diamond-encrusted car grilles, resembling interlinked chain bracelets, for Rolls-Royce Phantoms at $55,000 each) that they may not have encountered on their travel to popular watering holes like Cap Ferrat, Gstaad and Courchevel. This year's show is estimated to generate about $745 million. (Did the two page coverage of this crass greed-fest have anything to do with the fact that the conference,as disclosed in the article, was sponsored by the International Herald Tribune, which is owned by the New York Times Company?)

Today's (December 9th) New York Times outdoes itself as the lifestyle paper for the rich. "From Russia With Luxe" offers a guided tour to Moscow's most obscenely expensive hotels and restaurants. Turandot, the Times tells us, is a lavishly recreated 18th century European gilt palace, complete with servers in period dress--expect a meal for two to cost you over $1000 a head; the new Ritz-Carlton has rooms starting at about $700 a night. Another article, "Rubles, A Girl's Best Friend," features Russia's new socialistas....many of whom are the oligarchettes--designer-outfitted wives of the billionaires who benefited from the looting of the country's assets in the greatest firesale of the 20th century. All of this may be fascinating for the one percent of Russians and Americans who can afford to think about such trips or such social silliness.

Might it not be time for the Times to do a series about how Russia's middle class, working class or poor are faring? Russia's inequality has reached staggering heights --and while the Times loves to report about how the country is booming, the paper ignores the many people who still barely get by. The latest Russian government estimates show that as many as 5 million of its people are homeless. The Russian National Center for Living Standards reveals that about 23 million-- or 16% of the population-- live below the poverty level. (And independent surveys here and in Russia put that number far higher.) Roughly 33% of the country could not afford necessary medical care in 2007, according to the Center for the Study of Public Opinion. And with the scores of opeds and articles about Putin's assault on democracy, maybe a few of them could have noted that inflation and poverty, according to a recent Russian independent poll, were problems most on voters' minds in the runup to the December 2 parliamentary elections.

And with all the hyped coverage of the oil and gas boom fueling Russia's economy, and its fantastically expensive nightclubs, restaurants, hotels and designer clothes stores, maybe one, just one, story about how in a country which controls more than a quarter of the world's natural gas reserves, could report on how many people still use firewood to heat their homes? Here's a plea for a few articles in 2008 about the lifestyles of the poor, the near poor, the middle class...others.. besides the richest of the rich?

Comments (59)

1. I agree with you, Katrina, that there is a significant problem here.

   Paul Krugman had a powerful column back in the summer of 2006, " Tax Farmers, Mercenaries, and Viceroys", that spelled things out rather clearly I think.

   In many ways we seem to be regressing toward a new feudal future.

   But I'd like to ask you a pointed question here as well, Katrina. Why hasn't The Nation done a cover story on John Edwards as a serious option for progressive voters as the crucial Iowa Caucus approaches like a speeding bullet while the Barack O'Clinton chimera engorges itself on a feast of media coverage?

   Even the highly respected John Nichols has been mostly mute on the merits of John Edwards even as the Iowa polls show him right smack in the thick of the mix.

   I would also like to see a regular and prominent feature in every issue of The Nation addressing the absurd lockstep performance of our so-called mainstream media.

   John Pilger --in ISReview-- told of a fascinating tidbit recently that I think you'd find interesting as a veteran Russia watcher.

   One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"

   Indeed, what is the secret?!

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/09/2007 @ 8:44pm

2. "according to a recent Russian independent poll, were problems most on voters' minds in the runup to the December 2 parliamentary elections."

   Then why is Putin so popular?

   Posted by Mask at 12/09/2007 @ 9:39pm

3. mask-- Putin towers because of what preceded...rampant corruption, that firesale of 20 th century selling off country's assets to class which became oligarchs...as Karl marx said of John Locke...or Ricardo...he towers bec of barrenness of landscape around him and which preceded him...and no question that many are doing better...some stability...but inequality is staggering..makes our 21st century gilded age obscenities look somewhat less obscene ..katrina vH

   Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/09/2007 @ 9:42pm

4. I repost here the outstanding recent interview of John Edwards on the Charlie Rose Show.

   I only wish that it could get the prime-time, big network airing that a sane society would provide it with.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/09/2007 @ 9:43pm

5. Putin towers because of what preceded...rampant corruption

   ~katrina

   I believe Putin has also done some good things for the middle class as well.

   --Could have been a piece on Free Speech TV that I saw, but I saw a story along these lines somewhere recently, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't through the "MSM".

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/09/2007 @ 9:49pm

6. I wonder if I'm on KvH's ignore list?

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/09/2007 @ 9:53pm

7. ah, the omnipresent benefits of privatization.

   russia, mexico, canada, wherever......................

   it's like fertilizer for the oligarch patch.

   i hope they'll privatize air soon.

   and shame on you, NYTimes!

   reducing yourself to become the newsprint version of ¡HOLA!.

   Has Robin Leach bought the Times?

   Do they have a new "Champagne Wishes And Caviar Dreams" section?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2007 @ 9:57pm

8. B_Kool--your post was valuable...We value what Edwards has raised in this campaign....and have done some --perhaps not enough on his run..BUT you need to include web in our coverage..and Pilger quote is very interesting and don't think I don't think about need to have a running bit on media in our pages and on web. Thanks for smart post . kvh

   Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/09/2007 @ 10:06pm

9. Muchos gracias, senorita.

   To expound on the part about the coverage of our absurd MSM, it would be fantastic to see a cooperative effort among a broad swath of intelligent sources --left to right-- to point out with poignancy how thin a gruel is being served up on a daily basis here in the Estados Unidos.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/09/2007 @ 10:16pm

10. A great idea, sadly, it would appear that stories from the 'other' side of the 'other side of the looking glass' would be probably only be of interest to those who can appreciate the depth and complexity of the massive social, psychological, economic and evolving change that has transpired inside Russia in the last 15 years. Or those concuring with George Kennan, who said, "The best thing we can do if we want the Russians to let us be Americans is to let the Russians be Russian." Even about 10 years ago, I tried to get some pieces about new Russian entrepreneurs and social innovators into the US media to no avail. Even when relations were warmer the preference was for stories that fit the black/white or simpler 'cold warrior' sterotype -- showing the seemier or more negative side. Easier to cover and focus on the simple to digest glitz and blitz, that gives a pseudo-perception of 'sameness' around same superficial commercialism or anything and everything that conjures up the 'Bad Bear', like most of the recent election print media coverage and CNN's Putin piece. Or, examine the distate espressed in coverage of Gorbachev's recent Harvard speech, when he 'dared' to utter some positive words about Putin. Is it hardwired into the way the US looks at Russia? If one compares the coverage of China, does it suffer from similar biases, contradictions and double standards? Perhaps, an interesting study.

    Posted by akhmatova at 12/09/2007 @ 11:27pm

11. how thin a gruel is being served up on a daily basis here in the Estados Unidos.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/09/2007 @ 10:16pm

    that's actually quite global.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2007 @ 11:31pm

12. you know,

    it's sad that the media tends to ignore the "lower echelon" (i.e. normal people),

    in favour of bling, bling, bling,

    and i respect thenation muchly for bringing to light

    the plight

    of many of this earth's downtrodden,

    but,

    it's also ironic that i'm writing about this at the same time i see oprah's and sean penn's names

    staring at me on thenation's homepage.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2007 @ 11:46pm

13. that's actually quite global.

    it's also ironic that i'm writing about this at the same time i see oprah's and sean penn's names

    staring at me on thenation's homepage.

    fz

    sí, fz.

    on a different place, and a different space

    i direct your attention to the radiohead release, "in rainbows"

    which can be downloaded for a user selected fee thru today -12/10

    i highly recommend it for soothing sounds to placate the inner space of the mind

    i believe it's their best to date.

    cheers my frozen friend from the frontier

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 12:54am

14. i believe it's the best two&one half pound purchase i've ever made

    superb background for viewing the astro pic of the day

    or background for most anything for that matter.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 01:15am

15. in fact i might suggest that the tune, "house of cards" might

    aptly be played in a loop while reading the latest tomdispatch

    excerpt:

    War, economic collapse, and the political implosion of the Republican Party will make 2008 a year to remember.

    but all is not darkness

    as they say, crisis also means opportunity

    and hope is often found in the darkness

    kinda like the aurora borealis.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 01:30am

16. and lest i forget, a bottle of fine --or fine enuf-- wine is

    virtually de rigeur

    to the experience.

    ~buenos nochas :-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 01:49am

17. and one more log for the FIRE, to be read with wine:

    The Planned Collapse of America.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 03:19am

18. retry!

    and one more log for the FIRE, to be read with wine:

    click.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 03:25am

19. The subtext is that anyone - Russia, China, the Saudis - who stays on the good side of corporate America can get away with anything from genocide (Chechnya) to using US technology to build nukes and missiles to use against us (the Long March missile with new, improved, compact warhead) to sponsoring acts of terrorism against our soldiers and civilians (Saudi support of al Qaida, the Taliban and Sunni insurgents).

    Posted by samcrossett at 12/10/2007 @ 08:55am

20. Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/09/2007 @ 9:42pm

    The point, Ms vanden Heuvel, is that the Russians, not you...seem to know what they want and are willing perhaps to "wait a bit" to get things sorted out.

    And like Putin "bec" he brought them that stability...and that's the best they can hope for. They don't expect 1950s/1960s unionized, Great Society, 90% top marginal rates, etc....atleast not anytime soon. Remember the Wall just fell 18 years ago, and Yeltsin on a tank a year after that.

    These are people (which I'm sure you're familiar with somewhat) who have lived under a king or authoritarian dictatorship....their ENTIRE history. And the common Russian lived like serf...or creature at the "Animal Farm" for that history as well.

    Perhaps "staggering inequality" isn't as much a concern to them(since the "equality" they HAVE known wasn't that great or even equal)...

    as security, stability, and even, yes, a slightly less level of corruption. As AKHMATOVA noted, they're not Americans...they're Russians. They'll get their "Teddy Roosevelt" or "Franklin Roosevelt"...when they want it.

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 09:36am

21. Not that I supported his candidacy - or Putin's - but Gary Kasparov disposed of the idea of "the Russian soul" wanting, or at least accepting, authoritarian govenrment quite nicely in a recent interview I caught on TV. He noted that we've got two Koreas and two Taiwans, and we had two Germanies, with a relatively vibrant democracy and free press in one of each, while the other was authoritarian and lacked freedom. I can't remember if he added that in the case of South Korea and Taiwan, it was popular mobilization, not Western occupation, that won the people their freedoms. So if you can have different nations living under both democratic and authoritarian systems of governance, it's rather riduculous to say that Russians are hard-wired for authoritarianism while the Chinese, Koreans and Germans so manifestly are not?

    Mask tries to make it sound as if Ms. vanden Huevel is butting into the affairs of the Russian masses by pointing out the "staggering inequality" in Russia today. Typical, capitalist excuse-making. Yes, Mask, Russians are as capable as anyone else of prioritizing issues, so maybe stability and the restoration of their national dignity trump the rise of the billionaires at the moment. But as KVH pointed out, economic matters are rising to the top of their concerns. Now, Russians are just as suceptible to being misled by their media and government as anyone else, but history has shown us that eventually, in many countries, there will be a backlash against the filthy rich. Russia is certainly one of the greatest examples of that.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2007 @ 10:26am

22. Yes, Mask, Russians are as capable as anyone else of prioritizing issues, so maybe stability and the restoration of their national dignity trump the rise of the billionaires at the moment. But as KVH pointed out, economic matters are rising to the top of their concerns.----Posted by CKA2ND 12/10/2007 @ 10:26am

    I never said they were "hard-wired" for authoritarianism....just NURTURED on it (Nature vs Nurture?). And that after centuries of czars (or tsars) and nobles...and a 20th Century of Stalin and 'nicer' successors and apparatchiks....that the chaos of the 90s was the priority.

    And if the "economic inequality" was the REAL prime concern...they'd be voting for the reformers, not Putin's hand-pickeds.

    In other words, they'd be voting for "Kucinichs", not "Clintons" or "Obamas" (or even "Edwardses")....like another people whose sensibilities might not jive with self-appointed "John Reeds" or even..."Louise Bryants".

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 10:49am

23. While Katrina Vanden Heuvel is correct to critique the NYTImes, etc, for its excessive and devotional attention both to the oligarchs and the "haves", as opposed to the average worker, missing from the Nation of late has been a wider and deeper perspective on the post-soviet republics and Russia, per se. Steve Cohen's columns were long a needed antidote to the standard received wisdom, yet he seems to have disappeared from the ranks of the Nation's columnists.

    First, where is his column; does he still write for the Nation?

    Second, missing from the Nation's coverage of "Russia" is the increasingly central role of the Central Asian Republics in global affairs. As China has created economic and political ties and alliances with Africa and Latin America, its formative role in establishing the Shanghai Cooperative Organization highlights the significance of several of the energy producing Central Asian Republics along with Russia - and especially Siberia and the East in N.E. Asia.

    As the Nation has focused more and more attention to the American political horserace, lost has been a measured and vibrant treatment of emergent forces which are of great moment.

    Posted by leuihgingdak at 12/10/2007 @ 12:05pm

24. you may not like not like it, but Edwards inspires no one in the general populace...not in 04 and even less so now.

    ~JOMAMMA @ 11:30am

    Thanks for the insight, Frankenstein. I'll be sure to thoughtfully place it next to your posts on the inevitability of president Hillary, in the cylindrical file.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2007 @ 12:07pm

25. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/10/2007 @ 12:07pm

    Careful, B_KOOL....she hasn't LOST yet!

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 12:59pm

26. Thanks all for various inteligent /provocative postings. Regarding the absence of Stephen Cohen from the Nation's pages--don't think I don't try to get my husband, Steve, to weigh in on developments in Russia today/ He is at work finishing a book and unwilling to break from that. When he finishes, he'll be back. I agree his analysis is needed. And also agree we need to report on larger dynamics at work in that part of world. kvh

    Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/10/2007 @ 2:27pm

27. John/Jo: Regarding Edwards, until a few months ago, Rasmussen polls showed him beating every single Republican handily in the General Election, while Clinton and Obama both struggled to do the same. His own mis-steps and unwillingness to distinguish himself from those two DLC types has dragged him down and allowed them to ruse up against the GOP'ers.

    Mask: If there were reformers of the Kucinich or Edwards stripe in Russia that could get on the ballot and in the media, then maybe Russians would vote for them. But if the only reformers that most people see are warmed over "shock therapists," then Putin and his allies will continue to sweep to victory. And any of us should be so lucky to be another John Reed or Louise Bryant, because (a) they were there and had incredible access, and (b) they were outstanding journalists, as even their harshest ideological critics have admitted.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2007 @ 3:07pm

28. LEUIHGINGDAK: Very good post.

    By the way, has anyone else been at the movies lately and seen the previews, one after the other, for Charlie Wilson's War and The Kite Runner? Two movies coming out in the U.S. at about the same time about Afghanistan, and one could argue that Charlie and his war were largely responsible for the tragedy that is played out in The Kite Runner, although I'm sure the Soviets will get more than their fair share of the blame in both movies.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2007 @ 3:12pm

29. as security, stability, and even, yes, a slightly less level of corruption. As AKHMATOVA noted, they're not Americans...they're Russians. They'll get their "Teddy Roosevelt" or "Franklin Roosevelt"...when they want it.

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 09:36am | ignore this person

    Great post Mask and absolutely to the point. Comparing the Russian mentality to American is preposterous. For much of the poor, it is apparent that living standards have increased somewhat, and thats a whole lot better than they are used to. KVH's discussion of homelessness, lack of affordable medical care, and percentages sound alot like America. It all depends on what kind of totalitarian you have just as much as it depends on what kind of democracy you have. This article is far too smug, and fails to give some credit to Putin for small gains. What has democracy done for our poor lately? Better yet, what of future generations in America that are going to have to foot the bill for its excesses. Me thinks that their living standards are going to be on wane.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 3:41pm

30. Posted by CKA2ND 12/10/2007 @ 3:12pm

    If there had been no mujaheddin, CKA...what do you think would have happened to Afghanistan post 1980s? (I note Chechnya).

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 4:23pm

31. Posted by ONEVOTE 12/10/2007 @ 3:41pm

    Ms vanden Heuvel (and husband) claim greater knowledge of Russia than most. Although it should be remembered that George W. Bush got a MBA from Harvard and had a family history of excellent if sometimes dubious business deals....so education and history are never guarentors of expertise.

    But I think personally they are of that group that anticipated (and bought the hype) of Gorbachevism...that of a "reformed and open" Soviet Union (essentially unchanged as to domestic economic policy...i.e. socialist) that would have been free and democratic and "continued the Revolution". In other words, the same dream that their (editorially) great-grandparents had reading Reed's "Ten Days That Shook the World" or the myths of Walter Duranty.

    Gorbachev blew it and Putin, grabbing hold of a mess left by Yeltsin, finally made it so the Russians weren't looking at total anarchy and a gangster state. But he didn't resurrect the Trotsky Dream...and didn't even resurrect American TR Progressivism...so he's treated as a failure by them.

    Problem is...the Russian people (even Gorbachev at Harvard) aren't as pissed as the American Left at the fact that Russia is "America circa 1889" and not "Russia 1917".

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

32. Onevote and Mask: You both seem to think that you know FAR more than you really do. For one thing, Stephen Cohen's favorite Bloshevik is Bukharin, not Trotsky, so while he and KVH might have liked to have seem "socialism with a human face," including some form of market socialism, I can pretty much guarentee that Soviet economic policy, whether made by folks like Cohen/KVH or Trotskyists like me, would have been very different from the sclerotic, bureaucratic mess they had under the Stalinists.

    Current living standards: Ms. vanden Huevel probably has the data more readilly to hand than I do, but I would seriously doubt that the majority of the population are even back up to the standards in health, education, housing, pensions, crime, etc. that they had before 1989. And freedom of speech and association are diminishing to those levels.

    Walter Duranty: It was the Stalinists and the bourgoisie who bought his propaganda, hook, line and sinker. Ya' know, the ones who turned on a dime and became allies and then enemies, etc., etc.. Now, I have no problem with a tactical alliance, but I won't let one paper over the fact that FDR was and John Edwards is a class enemy, or that Stalin was and Gorbachev is a class traitor.

    Afghanistan: If the Carter Administration, as we now know, had not been funding the mujaheddin before the Soviet intervention, Afghanistan would have been another Soviet satellite or, as we Trotskyists call them, a "deformed workers state," not to mention a buffer state, which any great power that has been invaded three times in 150 years will want to have (kind of like another great power will want to reserve an entire hemisphere to itself; hey, this is Politics 101, Marxist or not). One with an authoritarian regime and secret police, although given that some kind of reform seemed inevitable in the USSR in the 80's, it probably would have reformed along similar lines to Eastern Europe or Vietnam. In any case, girls would have gone to school and women to college, the burkha would have become largely a thing of the past, there'd be factories in Kabul and Buddhist statues in the countryside, and it would not be the world's chief supplier of heroin and a safe haven for Osame Bin Laden. Hardly a socialist utopia, but not the Warlord/Taliban/Warlord hellhole it is now, either.

    By the way, Mask, you didn't formulate your question correctly. The main reason why Chechnya is a hellhole today is because there are people fighting against the Russians (and completely reasonably so). Chechnya would be far more peaceful and calm if the people would just give up and accept their lot, but the Russians haven't been able to impose their will on them yet. Most of Nazi-occupied Europe was pretty peaceful because the Nazis conducted occupations the old-fashioned way, like the ancient Romans. Thank goodness the Americans, Soviets and Russians haven't sunk quite that low in more recent times.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2007 @ 5:31pm

33. One last note before I sign off. I don't know if the polls still show this, but in Russia and many, if not all of the ex-Soviet republics, I believe consistent majorities of the population said that the break-up of the Soviet Union was a mistake. They may not want Russia 1917 (still less the Russia of the Civil War or of the purges), but having lived through the 1990's, a reformed version of the USSR of 1989 seemed to hold more appeal for a majority of the ex-Soviet population than Gilded Age America, circa 1889.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/10/2007 @ 5:39pm

34. Capitalism isn't always pretty, and it sure isn't perfect. However it is light-years ahead of socialism in providing true freedom and opportunity.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/10/2007 @ 2:12pm

    yep. and global environmental destruction, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 5:47pm

35. Posted by CKA2ND 12/10/2007 @ 5:39pm

    up here we got all sorts of people from excommunist states.

    and almost all of them concur that things were better "back then".

    purely anecdotal, but nonetheless.........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 5:51pm

36. Posted by MASK 12/10/2007 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person

    Many many Russians in America would agree. Do not speak bad about Putin -- they will be offended. Although they are in America, they do see the failings of American democracy, and their sense of history and the rise and fall of political ideologies is far greater than ours.

    I would venture to say that many who cry for democracy in Russia are or are affiliated with well traveled, and well heeled Russians who have lived in western Europe or America. Many of these individuals don't seem to quite fit into their mother country anymore. Those who support Putin most heartily are not necessarily rich kleptocrats but rather nationalist youth who are far from rich, but proud, and believe that Putin will restore Russia to its rightful place on the world stage.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 6:01pm

37. Posted by CKA2ND 12/10/2007 @ 5:31pm | ignore this person

    Well pardon us for voicing our opinion. Tell you what....I am going to listen to what average Russians are saying right here in America rather than snippets and pearls of wisdom from our gentrified socialist intelligentsia. They do maintain close contacts back home, and they do have a strong affinity for their Mother Country. So...we return to Mask's spot on original question..... why is Putin so popular?.....

    Maybe some of our insightful bloggers here should spend more time out on the street and less in Starbucks eh?

    Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 6:09pm

38. Posted by CKA2ND 12/10/2007 @ 5:31pm

    CKA, I really feel sorry for you man.

    Can you imagine how many American Marxists have lived and DIED since 1917 (or before)...always thinking that "It may happen when I'm an old man, but SOMEDAY the Revolution will come"...or later "It may happen when I'm an old woman, but SOMEDAY, democracy will return to the Soviet Union BUT with the original goals of the Bolsheviks!"....

    What are we? in the fourth or fifth generation of Communist apologia? First Lenin, then Trotsky, then Stalin, then Kruschev, Tito....oh, frabjous day, Comrade Fidel and a "worker's paradise" a mere 90 miles away....Ortega and the Sandinistas...now Hugo the Duck.

    And every time the crackdowns come...the elections are cancelled...the media taken over and the dream is crushed....the cycle starts all over again at Berkeley, the Sorbonne, or a coffee-house in the Village, NY.

    We're almost at the centennial...at some point, maybe we figure out that the best you'll ever get is Sweden, but the worst is always more likely.

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2007 @ 9:59pm

39. Only these kind of things can make it into the news because they are raren and picturesque.

    For centuries Russia has not known but totally authoritarian rule be it the emperors (Zhars) or the Communist Party. The idea of class division and ruling class is heavily rooted in most of the people. Now the ruling class is the rich which is triple perilous because it brings along much more immorality, ruthlessness and is 'seasoned' with a heavy dose of ultranationalism. Exactly the same type of conduct that brought about the bolshevik revolution.

    What is happening in Russia is very unhealthy not only to Russia but to the rest of the world taking into account their military and power and energy wealth. Not because the people can withstand a lot, they will do it forever.

    As I said back some time, the very first thing they need is at least 3 very strong and differentiated political parties and much more community work to create real democracy. The international community (specially the USA) need to reserve a political space that will satisfy Russia's potential.

    And finally an appeal to their ruling class, do they want another historical failure? Give the people a chance.

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/10/2007 @ 11:33pm

40. I don't claim any greater knowledge about Russia than Mask or Kool, though anyone with the posting name of the greatest poet of 20th Century Russia, Akhmatova (though I might argue Tsvetaeva is in same ranks) **must** have greater knowledge and insight than all of us! Except my husband, of course...:))Stephen Cohen, after all, has all along understood Putin/ism to be the conqequence of Yeltsin/ism --the search for some stability after anarchy and looting ..and authoritarianism of Putin era has to be understood in context of the de-democratization that followed Yeltsin times....On Roosevelt, FDR that is, and Russia...You must know that FDR is invoked by Putin as a state capitalist and his (FDR's) Fireside Chats have been translated in Russian, and sold throughout Moscow, for over last five or 7 years....Washington Post had an article a month or so ago about FDR's fine and soaring repuation in Moscow...but what it failed to grasp is this ain't new...Gorbachev's right hand man, for many years, Aleksandr Yakovlev..wrote his dissertation on New Deal and FDR ...and there are deep and abiding roots and affection among Russians for new Deal and a hope for a new New Deal in Russia. We could use one here in US of A. Working --when not coming off of a nation institute dinner ...on such an issue for march 2008...kvh

    Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/11/2007 @ 12:20am

41. "What are we? in the fourth or fifth generation of Communist apologia? First Lenin, then Trotsky, then Stalin, then Kruschev, Tito....oh, frabjous day, Comrade Fidel and a "worker's paradise" a mere 90 miles away....Ortega and the Sandinistas...now Hugo the Duck.

    And every time the crackdowns come...the elections are cancelled...the media taken over and the dream is crushed....the cycle starts all over again at Berkeley, the Sorbonne, or a coffee-house in the Village, NY. "

    Hugo Chavez has canceled elections? When? Hugo Chavez has taken over the media? When?

    Posted by Sixtieth Oak at 12/11/2007 @ 04:17am

42. Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/11/2007 @ 12:20am

    KVH, I work with an x Russian and he pretty muchs thinks Putin walks on water. From what I see, Putin has at least tried to kick the international congolomerates out of Russia from exploiting the nations resources.

    Meanwhile, our president and wallstree are letting international businessmen exploit our national resources, ie selling our nation out benath our feet. No wonder my co-worker views Putin so highly. At least Putins somehat stands for the Russian people versus our leaders who will sell us out to the highest bidder.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 09:22am

43. Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/11/2007 @ 12:20am

    Ms vanden Heuvel, why is it that American liberals seem to know what's best for Russians, than Russians do?

    You know, they had a revolution (once or twice) and seem able to decide for themselves when they want "a New Deal". Putin's hand-picked won...so it really doesn't matter what you, your husband, or the NY Times think.

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 09:42am

44. Hugo Chavez has canceled elections? When? Hugo Chavez has taken over the media? When? ----Posted by SIXTIETH OAK 12/11/2007 @ 04:17am

    Tried with one, half-tried with the other. Ref: the recent Constitutional move to eliminate term limits for himself and the shutting down of RCTV.

    (Now, here's where the "Boxer the Horses" come out of the woodwork and claim that Chavez is perfectly justified in doing things that they would NEVER tolerate from...Bush!)

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 09:46am

45. No wonder my co-worker views Putin so highly. At least Putins somehat stands for the Russian people versus our leaders who will sell us out to the highest bidder.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/11/2007 @ 09:22am | ignore this person

    Exactly WG. The idea here is that Russians would rather have one corrupt mafia than many competing "democratic" and "capitalist" mafias vying for control. With one mafia, there is at least efficiency, and a modicum of security. Take Iraq for instance. Saddam was building schools and hospitals and his brutality kept a lid on violence and imposed civil order. What do we have now? Haven't we heard from many Iraquis that they were better off under Saddam? I too would love a world of freedom and flawless democracy, or any political ideology that provides the greatest good for the greatest number....but human nature being what it is makes this all but a pipe dream. Reality is what it is.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/11/2007 @ 11:04am

46. The idea here is that Russians would rather have one corrupt mafia than many competing "democratic" and "capitalist" mafias vying for control. With one mafia, there is at least efficiency, and a modicum of security.

    ONEVOTE,

    Another little thing I notice with my Russian Co-worker is that he doesn't and didn't believe everything he read while he lived in the former Soviet Union. He knew most of what was out there was propaganda thrown out by the powers that be.

    The Russians have lived through many corrupt governments and seen more of their fair share of what corrupt officials do. I believe we Americans are around 50 to 100 years behind our Russian counterparts in sifting through the B.S. to get to a remote semblance of the truth about what's going on.

    The only way to do this is read as many news articles via internet, newspapers, publications etc. as possible and try to find a common denominator in those articles. The truth may lie there, unless, of course, all of the stories being run are from one behemouth monopoly like Rupert Murdoch and assosicates.

    This brings us full circle back to the Soviet Union propaganda.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 11:23am

47. Onevote: I'm sorry that I offended you but, aside from your anti-democratic sentiments, the sentence in your original post that I thought bespoke real ignorance, and to which I responded regarding pre-1989 living standards, was this one: "For much of the poor, it is apparent that living standards have increased somewhat, and that's a whole lot better than they are used to." As for Putin's popularity, I've noted the Russian electorate's current preference for "stability and the restoration of their national dignity," and that "if the only reformers that most people see are warmed over "shock therapists," then Putin and his allies will continue to sweep to victory."

    Also, personal contact is a valuable learning tool, no question, but so is reading a wide range of material, from The American Conservative and Liberty on the right to Workers Vanguard and Proletarian Revolution on the left, with books, newspapers and the web supplementing my periodical reading list. None of which has ever taken place in a Starbucks, by the way. And while things in the old USSR may have been better than under Yeltsin, that doesn't mean that there aren't Russians who would like both political democracy and economic fairness. I can recognize how Putin may have made things better for the average Russian but that doesn't mean I have to accept that authoritarianism, ultra-nationalism to the point of bigotry, and what is probably a dead-end economic strategy is good for Russia, or any country for that matter. Ideas and examples have a tendency to travel, don't you know.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/11/2007 @ 4:32pm

48. Mask: Thank you SIXTIETH OAK. Chavez's changing the term limits – a bad idea – is not the same thing as canceling elections. And if the Joint Chiefs of Staff attempted a coup d'etat against Bush with the support of ABC, even I, Commie Pinko Red that I am, would support stripping ABC of its licenses to own and operate its TV and radio stations and charging its management with treason. And while I wouldn't want to be arrested and have my license to own a TV station revoked if I supported a workers revolution against Bush and Co., I'd certainly understand it if the SoB took both actions if the revolution failed. How people cannot understand Chavez wanting to revoke RCTV's license for supporting a failed, foreign-backed coup against his overwhelmingly popular government just astounds me.

    How long did the transition from feudalism to capitalism take in Europe? 400-500 years, if you date the early days of capitalism to, say, the Hanseatic League of Northern Europe. Lots of starts and stops there, including in Germany, where most of the League's cities were located. Socialism has only been nipping at capitalism's heels for about 160 years, and the failure of the USSR was predicted more than 60 years ago by Trotsky and other socialists, both supporters of its founding and opponents. You continue to display the sense of history of a housefly, so pardon those of us with a longer view, even if some of us are under no illusion that "The Revolution" will come during our lifetime, and I'm years away from retirement.

    Oh, and is it only people with real expertise on the situation, like Stephen Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel, and American leftists (I don't find that liberals really give two farts about Russia) who aren't allowed to express an opinion on human rights and the social, economic and political situation in Russia and the rest of the ex-Soviet Union, or should conservatives and moderates shut up, too – heaven forbid the rest of us learn anything from anyone else - and only let, who, you, pontificate for our benefit?

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/11/2007 @ 4:36pm

49. KVH: Oh please, let's not be falsely modest or patronizing, even to a faux populist and pompous ass like Mask. I have no problem saying that you have more knowledge about Russia than anyone who has posted in response to your article so far, with the possible exception of Akhmatova. Hell, your fascinating report on the popularity of FDR and the New Deal in Russia just further puts the lie to the idea of some of my fellow posters that "Russians" accept the inequality and poverty that afflict so many of them.

    You know, in my experience, it was rarely the Sandanistas or the members of the African National Congress who refused to take criticism from foreigners. It was usually their official and semi-official (or self-appointed) solidarity workers and supporters who said that they could never be criticized, that any criticism, especially by an American, was imperialist or racist. This was patronizing hogwash back in the 80's, and it is patronizing BS now, whether we are commenting on the Iraqi resistance or on Russia's crackdown on a free press, including the murder of journalists (just to bring it back to the real, again). Even if the majority of Russians support Putin, I would bet that they could accept some criticism of his administration if it came from folks who also opposed Bush's plan to place a missile defense program near Russia, or the economic exploitation of Russia by foreign corporations and domestic oligarchs alike. Prove your bona fides, as I think you and your husband have done, and aside from Putin himself, hopefully it will just be his American cheering section that feels the need to tell you to keep quiet, to stop being such a busy body, to know your place.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/11/2007 @ 4:37pm

50. Posted by CKA2ND 12/11/2007 @ 4:32pm

    So then, do you accept the leadership we have in this country right now since you are so opposed to Putin?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 4:42pm

51. Posted by CKA2ND 12/11/2007 @ 4:32pm

    So then, do you accept the leadership we have in this country right now since you are so opposed to Putin?

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/11/2007 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person

    I accept that they currently run the government and write the laws. I occasionally petition them, but I do not vote for them as they represent the capitalist class. I will even serve on a jury as this is a vital democratic right and a key protection for the oppressed and the working class. I would dearly love to see a revolution to overthrow capitalism, its state and its government, but I shall not hold my breath like a child until it happens, nor shout that "The Revolution has come, the Revolution has come!" every time I see cops ride into a demonstration or, better yet, those rare occasions when demonstrators or strikers fight back against the cops or the bosses' goons. I wouldn't support a reformist socialist like Bernie Sanders if he were elected President, either, although I would probably have a privately gleeful moment at the thought of various right-wing and centrist pundits' heads exploding upon this miraculous occurance.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/11/2007 @ 5:03pm

52. Posted by CKA2ND 12/11/2007 @ 5:03pm

    Interesting indeed. I think what you say may eventually end up happending if things are to change in the U.S., but as you pointed out, it probably won't be in our lifetimes.

    Then again, I never thought our country would swing so far to the right that Nixon would practically look like a libral tree hugger in hindsight compared to the lunatic fringe we have running our country now.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 5:20pm

53. Alexander Cockburn has argued that the Nixon Administration was the most liberal of the 20th Century. It would be nice if he would explicitly point out that this was a function of the times in which it governed, with social and political unrest that had spread up the economic ladder, and not just a peace movement growing more militant by the year but a labor movement that, it shocks us to hear this now, actually gave them some fitful thoughts of revolution, especially thanks to the illegal nation-wide postal workers wildcat strike.

    I do love to see the bosses sweat.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/11/2007 @ 5:56pm

54. and is it only people with real expertise on the situation, like Stephen Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel, and American leftists (I don't find that liberals really give two farts about Russia) who aren't allowed to express an opinion on human rights and the social, economic and political situation in Russia and the rest of the ex-Soviet Union....----Posted by CKA2ND 12/11/2007 @ 4:36pm

    Well that would have been nice....TWENTY years ago. Back then, all that mattered to them was "cultural exchanges" and "can't we disarm so they won't be scared of us" and "Okay, okay, they crushed the Hungarians and Czechs, but LOOK!...they have more female doctors than we do AND free health care...we could learn a thing or two from them!"

    John Reed and Walter Duranty didn't die...they just got more subtle.

    So maybe we'll take it with a grain of salt all the worries from the American Left about Russian human rights...given its a relatively NEW phenomenon.

    BTW...Posted by CKA2ND 12/11/2007 @ 4:37pm

    It wasn't "false modesty"...it was patronizing. After all, we mere peasants and ...proletariat...do not question the authority of academics who have 'studied Russia for years'...or their wives.

    To do so, would mean we think that maybe they're not as smart as they tell us!

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 10:25pm

55. There you go again, Mask, lumping the entire left into one basket. Trotskyists, anarchists and social democrats have a very different record than Stalinists, including the Maoist sub-set, when it comes to condemning Soviet (and Cuban, and Chinese, etc., etc.) human rights violations, including those of national minorities, gays and lesbians, women and, oh yeah, workers. You're like Rush Limbaugh, raving about "feminazis" as if NOW equals Andrea Dworkin.

    I have a Maskian question for you Mask. Given that Stephen Cohen has been The Nation's long-time Soviet affairs columnist and has written on the purges, and given Ms. vanden Heuvel's journalism on issues Soviet and Russian, please prove that they, just these two authors, not the whole left, were not concerned about human rights in the Soviet Union, that it never came up in their work, either historical or journalistic. Please back up your charges.

    I have no problem listening to other points of view, including ones that disagree with Cohen, KVH or myself, if the person can back it up with more than the knowledge and attitudes gleaned from the mainstream media and an ideological spectrum best represented by CNN's old Crossfire.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/12/2007 @ 12:26am

56. and given Ms. vanden Heuvel's journalism on issues Soviet and Russian, please prove that they, just these two authors, not the whole left, were not concerned about human rights in the Soviet Union, that it never came up in their work, either historical or journalistic. Please back up your charges.---Posted by CKA2ND 12/12/2007 @ 12:26am

    Okay...fair enough-

    (Can't link...please cut and paste it into your address)

    http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/govt/faculty/Evangelista%20docs/New%20Thi nking.pdf

    then go to the column "Sovieticus" by Stephen Cohen...

    and tell me all the 'concern' about human rights? Lotta love for the Gorbachev (apologia galore) and a lot of "If we stupid Americans didn't realize how nice Khruschev really was..." or "Gee, you can't deny the fact that they don't lock up people for not having a picture of the Soviet leader on their walls at home...that's real progress" stuff.

    Mostly just attacking the West for, oddly, applying Western standards to the Soviet system...I say oddly because that's EXACTLY what Ms vanden Heuvel is doing in THIS article about the "oligarch-ettes".

    See, that's the point, CKA. Prof. Cohen and Mrs. didn't care so much for human rights when it was a good SOCIALIST model system and a SOCIALIST promising MINOR reforms (Gorbachev)....

    but when it's a CAPITALIST Russia...suddenly they're Reaganesque "hard-liners".

    That's hypocrisy based purely on the fact that they liked the STATED economic policies of Russia in the 1980s...and don't like the economic policies of Russia in the 2000s....

    and little to do with human rights.

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 10:18am

57. BTW, the gap between "Thi" and "nking" in "Thinking" in that pdf may mess you up...you'll need to attach it.

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 10:19am

58. Well, Jeez, Mask, you're basing your whole argument on one column? Sheesh!

    And I can't really see the great difference between Cohen's hopes 20 years ago that "If successful, Gorbachev's economic and social policies will improve the lives of tens of millions of Soviet citizens." while vanden Huevel talks about staggering economic inequality in a post-Soviet, post-Yeltsin, Putin-ruled Russia. And what is wrong with the sentiment, stated 20 years ago and not only consistent with their thinking today but historically logical, that "We may wish for democracy in the Soviet Union [Russia], but to deny that lesser improvements are meaningful is a profound failure of analysis and of compassion."

    Cohen, KVH and others on both the left and right (Pat Buchanan among them) have noted the improvements in living standards and economic growth in the transition from Yeltsin, our man in Russia, to Putin. We do not "deny those lesser improvements" even as we wish for continued and expanded, not shrunken, political democracy, or for a fairer economic shake for all. I don't consider those Western standards, myself. Marxist that I am, I consider them human standards, even if they can't be applied at all times in every situation (this not being heaven on earth).

    And they are hardly Reaganesque hardliners towards capitalist Russia now. Heck, like The American Conservative, The Nation has been vocal in arguing against the new cold war with Russia that our foreign policy and economic elites seem to be pushing us into.

    But thank you for the link. That's a nice historical resource to have, even if I was a sceptic about Gorby's economic reforms (Perestroika) - his political ones, Glasnost, were at least a start in the right direction - all those years ago.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/12/2007 @ 3:13pm

59. Posted by CKA2ND 12/12/2007 @ 3:13pm

    CKA...look at your own post of 3:13pm.

    How many times did you mention "economic" reforms, or "economic" shake, or "economic inequality"?

    And how many times (like Prof. Cohen back in '87)....human rights?

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 3:54pm