Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: The E on September 05, 2014, 04:24:03 am
-
So this article (http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/sep/02/dying-russians/) turned up in my newsfeeds:
The deaths kept piling up. People—men and women—were falling, or perhaps jumping, off trains and out of windows; asphyxiating in country houses with faulty wood stoves or in apartments with jammed front-door locks; getting hit by cars that sped through quiet courtyards or plowed down groups of people on a sidewalk; drowning as a result of diving drunk into a lake or ignoring sea-storm warnings or for no apparent reason; poisoning themselves with too much alcohol, counterfeit alcohol, alcohol substitutes, or drugs; and, finally, dropping dead at absurdly early ages from heart attacks and strokes.
Back in the United States after a trip to Russia, I cried on a friend's shoulder. I was finding all this death not simply painful but impossible to process. "It's not like there is a war on," I said.
"But there is," said my friend, a somewhat older and much wiser reporter than I. "This is what civil war actually looks like. "It's not when everybody starts running around with guns. It's when everybody starts dying."
My friend's framing stood me in good stead for years. I realized the magazine stories I was writing then were the stories of destruction, casualties, survival, restoration, and the longing for peace. But useful as that way of thinking might be for a journalist, it cannot be employed by social scientists, who are still struggling to answer the question, Why are Russians dying in numbers, and at ages, and of causes never seen in any other country that is not, by any standard definition, at war?
The issue here is, in the decade between 1997 and 2007, Russia's population has shrunk by about 5%, average life expectancy has fallen dramatically, and the probability of a child living past the age of 15 is lower than in some of the countries on the UN's "least developed" list.
This is similar to a country that has a civil war in progress, or has come out of one; Yet Russia wasn't actually involved in big conflicts after WW2. So, what's happening here? And what's going to happen?
-
What, you mean the ethnic Russians in Ukraine won't be better protected by being in Russia, rather than Ukraine? Lies, from a politician who has run his country into the ground and now tries to shift the blame and attention to an outside influence? Well, I never.
-
All things eventually die out. It is quite possible that Russia is just the frontrunner of the decline of the Western civilization.
-
What, you mean the ethnic Russians in Ukraine won't be better protected by being in Russia, rather than Ukraine? Lies, from a politician who has run his country into the ground and now tries to shift the blame and attention to an outside influence? Well, I never.
Yes, Putin definitely ran Russia into the ground. The country was doing much better under Yeltsin.
Oh, wait.
-
All things eventually die out. It is quite possible that Russia is just the frontrunner of the decline of the Western civilization.
They weren't exactly at it for very long
-
It's the margins of civilization that die first.
-
Hmm. The article disagrees with you there, Luis (and me along with you). The dying out started long before the Russians even became part of the western civilization.
-
lol you're implying Russia hasn't been part of Western civilization before 1990.
Might I disagree with you there? Russia has been part of European culture and civilization for centuries.
-
very much depends on how you define "western civilization"
-
Doesn't it always. Loosely, you can imagine.
-
lol you're implying Russia hasn't been part of Western civilization before 1990.
It tried very-very hard not to be for the better part of the 20th century, and that is when the dying off started. I'd say that Russia is not a sign of the "Decline of the western civilization" but rather just them having awfull luck with leaders. Contrast the other fringes of "Western civilization" like all the eastern bloc countries which are not russia, which seem to be doing fine (except for them being harassed by russia).
-
Russia's been lagging behind the rest of Europe for much, much longer than the 20th century. Seriously, they didn't abolish serfdom until 1861, whereas it had mostly been phased out of Western Europe a good 200 years earlier.
This "decline" isn't new. On the contrary, I'd say Russia has historically been slower to "rise" than the rest of Europe socially and culturally, and the whole USSR thing hasn't helped matters at all. The only way in which Russia could be considered truly modern is technologically, and even that tends to be very centralized. Rural Russia is doing a lot worse than the cities in pretty much every way.
It's not even leaders. Putin is a pretty good leader by Russian standards. It's cultural inertia and a bit of an obsession with "the good old days". I think depression is actually very apt. They're still depressed about the USSR dying.
-
Hmmmmm....what happened in Russia between 1997 and 2007?
Oh, right, Neoliberalism happened. (http://michael-hudson.com/2011/09/russian-ripoff/)
I learned a while ago to tune out anyone who talks about a civilization's tendency to decline without explaining the mechanism by which it occurred. You guys need to stop thinking like Hegel.
-
To explain away what happened in Russia by namedropping "neo-liberalism" is not enough, no matter how you feel a great deal of urge to do so. If anything it cannot possibly explain its demographic implosion for the past 30 years now.
e: I'd take Hegel over that Michael something every day now.
-
To explain away what happened in Russia by namedropping "neo-liberalism" is not enough, no matter how you feel a great deal of urge to do so. If anything it cannot possibly explain its demographic implosion for the past 30 years now.
e: I'd take Hegel over that Michael something every day now.
To be fair the Russian economy has been declining since the 1970s (for which Soviet economic policies can be blamed), but the decline became a collapse with Neoliberal "reforms" that gutted both Russian industry and the entire social safety network. Luis Dias, read the damn article. You don't have to agree with all of it, but there things in it you need to read about, such as Russian workers being forced to take on astronomical amounts of debt just to avoid being thrown out of their homes. The whole economy was gutted during this period. Russia's pattern follows Latin American countries who had similar policies forced on them.
I don't want to hear about vague self-destructive forces within a society. Explain to me what actually happened. The irony of you defending Hegel and me attacking him and demanding a more scientific analysis is pretty funny though.
-
I don't think it was really "behind", it's just a very different place. I noticed that people in the West had a hard time understanding Russians. So do I, at times, but relative proximity (both cultural and geographic) helps here. Russians think differently than Europeans. That's actually a rather important point Putin makes, too (that the West tries to "assimilate" Russia into it's thinking). Even if they are fascinated by the West, adopt things from there, they do things differently. Putin is actually rather good, from the Russian point of view, though there were better than him. Both on personal and national level, there are major differences between Russia and, say, the US. I think it's a major part of Russian decline. They try to imitate the West (because it's rich) and don't quite understand (or are unable to replicate) the thinking behind it's achievements. They can't understand the Western way of thinking, which is the real key to success in the Western world. On the other hand, it's riches are very alluring, so they'd like to have a piece of that. However, it's not working out due to certain, crucial, cultural differences.
For example, classic Cold War rhetoric "Equality vs. Freedom". Russian communists (Lenin et al) were initially quite serious about equality. It's been ingrained into thinking to a certain degree, for long I couldn't understand racism in the US, for example. It seemed ridiculous and primitive to me. Same with misogyny. Communist media have plenty of strong women, while in the West, they didn't even think about allowing women to serve in combat until recently, Soviets had no qualms against not only forming all-female combat battalions, but throwing them into the grinder along with the male soldiers. On the other hand, personal freedoms are often seen as somewhat secondary. I heard individuality is in high demand in US, which is part of the reason I'd like to go there. In Poland, at least, it's not very welcome, especially if coupled with intelligence (it's likely similar with Russians). Also, when coming across an oppressive law, a westerner would appeal to change it, while an easterner would break it. There are numerous differences like that. Westerners often simply can't grasp how Russians think, and vice versa.
I think that depression isn't really "about" USSR dying, but definitely because of USSR falling apart. They're depressed about being flung into a difficult reality, without even upbeat propaganda to cheer them up. Russians are used to not being in control of things, life was miserable, but rather easy. Now they have a lot of possibilities, but would also need to work for them, since government doesn't provide as much as it used to. They see so much things they can't afford, things they will never get. It simply doesn't occur to most that they could, in fact, afford those things if they worked for them. The default mindset is "those things require connections/special skills/something I don't have" and they don't even try. Many people in Poland fondly remember the communist regime for exactly the same reasons. I can see why Russians are depressed, in Poland, it's not that bad due to this mentality being artificially imposed on us for about 50 years, and a helping of German influences. We can cope with the changing world, though often in unorthodox ways (which actually is a big plus in the West). Russians have much more trouble, so they turn to their old, old way of deal with it, which is drinking lots of vodka.
-
Also, Russia teaches us a lesson we keep being taught time and time again. YOU CANNOT BECOME A WEALTHY NATION BY EXPORTING RAW MATERIALS. Raw materials are factor inputs- they NEED to be cheap compared to the finished products that they go into. Making finished products is how you become wealthy. Hell, the American Revolution happened because Britain tried to turn America into solely an exporter of raw materials for their factories, which we would then depend upon for manufactured goods. We either had to become independent or accept being made poor.
-
When a nation discovers it has a ton of oil, this is what it should be thinking: "Yes! Now we can use all that oil to pay for imported capital equipment so we can start building up an industrial sector!" and not "Yes! Now we'll just sit on that oil and rake in the dough!" Why do you think Saudi Arabia is still so poor?
-
The secret is infra-structure, and the more infra there is to structure, the harder it is to maintain. It's been the history of Empires throughout history that they expand, fragment and collapse, largely due to the fact that the infrastructure could not be maintained over increasing distances.
Even the US is still a large agricultural producer, with production focused in certain areas (Silicon Valley for example), but America was smart and invested heavily in Infrastructure, and had the advantage of being able to literally build their way across the continent with access to modern techniques and materials, rather than inherit something that had to be dealt with in a single piece.
-
the depressing thing is i thought the op was talking about 'murica.
-
I cannot and will not attempt to predict what will happen to Europe and America. We could keep gutting our economies and our basic social services, which could produce similar results to what happened to Russia. Or maybe not. Europe is perfectly capable of recovery the moment the EU's periphery nations ditch the euro and get back control of their fiscal policy. Americans could get sick of deficit hysteria and stop austerity by threatening the careers of politicians who support it. Anything can happen. I know the pessimists and cynics are going to remind me that unsustainable systems can last a lot longer than I might think, and that's true, but what's also true is that when they do finally break down, they do so suddenly and without warning.
As the ultimate example of this: Noone in America thought slavery was going anywhere in 1855.
-
Congratulations for finding out one of the most interesting articles in this forum for a long time, and additionally thanks for Dragon for writing the point of view from the East-West crossover zone.
I believe that at least part of the cause is far more in the history than a lot of people think of. Soviet Union wasn't much different for a normal person compared to the time of Czars and their policing operations (Soviet Union was a bit more systematic) where the law was the local officer, despite what the the book of laws said. I don't think Russia has ever had a similar police system than there is in the West, as the individual rights are not strictly enforced. Or are enforced, but at random and occasionally only by bribes. Or that they are only enforced efficiently in some places, while Mafia still rules in most of the area. And there's no easy way to investigate the officers actions as a counter-balance. I suppose there is a reason for that, though.
All this will lead to a feeling of helplessness, and actually it is not only a feeling, but acknowledging the terrible truth of the situation: there's nothing that you can do to make your life better without the risk of somebody coming and taking it away from you. This means a failure of society in the basic level in the Western terms. I cannot make a judgment how likely that would be in real life (our export truckers' experience says it's quite likely), but I can believe that it is very efficient in thwarting a lot of economical activity from the people. Now that being said, it's not like the Russians wouldn't have their share of crazy projects, but they are more about having fun than creating commercial value, and principally there's nothing wrong with that.
Then again, being born in the crossover zone, I'll have to say both sides do have their good and bad sides. As Dragon mentioned, Soviets did not shy away from "equalizing" everyone despite the gender. Which makes you wonder when you hear about the current system in Germany which seems very discouraging to women returning to work after giving birth - my understanding is that they would then face increased taxes. Additionally, talking with Russians will reveal you an entirely different world, the discussion is typically much more deeper than when you're talking with Westerners in business occasions or in similar professions, though my experience is limited to highly educated people from both sides. I'd go and say that US and Germany business people that I know of have a lot more trouble expressing who they themselves are compared to Russians, but then again, that's because of my background. I'm sure they'd feel very awkward to talk about those subjects to begin with so discussion is usually kept in the safe areas like football (which is utterly boring if you ask me). So it's kind of weird, but I'd say the Russians have no trouble expressing their soul, while you get the impression that Westerners don't even have it!
Which makes it interesting, since I find it relatively easy to talk with Polish, Romanians, Chechs, Slovaks, Hungarians and so on, perhaps the cultural heritage is similar?
EDIT: And actually, a perspective from a Russian would be very interesting to hear now.
-
The issues you've mentioned have been around for a long time. The question is why did they become so acute during that ten year time span? I gave the most obvious explanation, a particularly disasterous economic upheaval, but i'd be happy to hear alternatives.
-
I think that your assessment is correct, but doesn't cover the all the causes. The economic conditions are bad, but there's one more thing that makes it much worse: free press! Before, when things were going bad, the Party denied it. Disasters were classified, economy glossed over and Western world demonized. But now, Russians get a full view of their country falling apart, all while the West grows and builds up across the border.
For example: China is overtaking Russia with it's space program, and people know it. It's no secret that Roskosmos is a pathetic shade of Soviet space program. On the other hand, during Soviet times, they didn't even admit Americans won the "moon race", or that the race even existed! Their leadership said "That's a nice thing they did, but we're not risking people for what we can do with robots.". Those four N1s that blew up? They didn't exist as well. Soviets didn't do that well in reality (space exploration went rather well, but they had many, many failures, especially early on), but were really great in making it look like they did. I love Soviet propaganda music, despite not understanding the lyrics very well, it's jaunty, upbeat and motivating. Today, it's all gone, government propaganda isn't nearly as intense as it used to be, and an average Russian gets hit full force with not only just how bad the situation is, but also that they're (as individuals) powerless to help it.
As for the Czars, they simply didn't bother informing the peasants about the state of affairs, so this didn't appear before. Modern technology exaggerates this as well. Before, noone knew what's happening in the rest of the world in such detail as now.
Additionally, talking with Russians will reveal you an entirely different world, the discussion is typically much more deeper than when you're talking with Westerners in business occasions or in similar professions, though my experience is limited to highly educated people from both sides. I'd go and say that US and Germany business people that I know of have a lot more trouble expressing who they themselves are compared to Russians, but then again, that's because of my background. I'm sure they'd feel very awkward to talk about those subjects to begin with so discussion is usually kept in the safe areas like football (which is utterly boring if you ask me). So it's kind of weird, but I'd say the Russians have no trouble expressing their soul, while you get the impression that Westerners don't even have it!
Yes, it is a different world. Indeed, the Cold War concept of "Second World" is surprisingly close to truth. Russians think differently than westerners, the further east you go, the more alien the mindset becomes. While I haven't met too many people from the US in person, it's true that people further east have an easier time getting personal. On the other hand, I have a feeling they're somewhat least honest about their feelings and more prone to "group mentality". I don't think any of those "worlds" is fundamentally better, but there are crucial differences that many people don't realize.
-
As Dragon said, the collapse of the Soviet Union and consequently the hope from better tomorrow was effectively removed (which was partially covered in the article as well). Free markets allowed even more booze and drugs to flow in, worsening the deal. Currently, the police is barely functional and their function suffers a lot from corruption.
The Russian point of view is more that the West effectively destroyed the Soviet Union - which it did financially - and they tend to think that it's Russia which has been under attack for centuries (which is true when you think in terms of centuries). However, somehow they neglect that Russia has also been the aggressor on a lot of these occasions, causing untold damage for better part of three to five hundred centuries. The hard part for them to understand is that former Warsaw pact countries like Baltics turned their backs to Russia as soon as possible as they had a change, never considering their own role in that. It's well possible that they don't even know what it was like to be on that area.
The same goes with Finland, I hear from Russian traveling Finns that the Russians are now asking why are we walking on rank and file with the EU. The problem with Russians as far has been that their legalization and its enforcement is so random and arbitrary that it's not possible to trust or make any long term plans with them. Violating airspace with military reconnaissance aircraft thrice a month isn't either a way to build any sort of trust with the neighbors, and that's been going on in the Gulf of Finland for ages. But at least we tried to explain this to them, tried to improve the conditions in the cities close to Finnish border, improve their waste treatment facilities in St. Petersburg, but to no avail, and it seems that our choice next is going to be joining to NATO. But this is side-tracking.
So the answer to your question is quite multi-dimensional, but I think that the crashing economy is a symptom of a dysfunctional society, which then encourages people to drink more to just get over it. Most of the deaths the original article lists are probably still related to alcohol or shoddy worksmanship, or just general carelessness. I sure hope Russia can get on its feet and reverse the dying trend, but any progress is slow on such vast country. The most worrying part is that I don't think this is anyhow new in the Russian history. Part of Putin's fame is actually coming from the fact that people are thinking that with him in the helm the future might be brighter.
-
I think that it's not about the society being dysfunctional per se, but rather unsuited to the current situation. There's still a lot of communist-era mentality even in Poland, let alone Russia. The very mentality that now doesn't work, or at least not well. Decline of Russian economy and society are linked, but I think that it's the economy that went first. In Russia, the default way of coping with hard times (or celebrating good times, for that matter) is to get drunk, preferably with friends. Free market only introduced more varieties of drugs, if that (Russian Mafia had them covered back in Soviet times, too). Generally, it's not even an issue with how much they drink, but how they drink. Countries listed in the article as having more alcohol consumption per capita have a different way of drinking. They usually drink beer (Czechs and Hungarians are particularly famous for that) and often have it with their meals, much like French or Italians drink wine. Even "social drinking" of beer, also prevalent, isn't too bad, as it has a low alcohol content, meaning alcohol intake tends to be more spread-out. Russians, on the other hand, "socially drink" vodka and other high-proof alcohols. Often to deliberately get sloshed, if things are bad. This often ends in alcohol poisoning, drunken stupidity (especially since in Russia, being drunk is often not considered a big deal) and other such things.
The problem with the Russians is that, just like the West often can't understand the way Russians think, Russians rarely understand Westerners. Doing the same, but in a Russian way often results in a disaster, and it's, as you said, hard to understands why other "Slavic" countries would throw in their lot with the West, as well as why it works out for them so well. Baltic states had a lot of contact with Germany (dating back to medieval Hansa) Sweden and Denmark via the sea, and as such, understand the West a lot better than Russians do.
-
The economic conditions are bad, but there's one more thing that makes it much worse: free press!
Eeehhh, I'm not so sure it's all that "free" these days, though almost certainly better than it was during Soviet times. Putin has a pretty heavy stranglehold on the national press, and even outside information seems to get viewed through a particularly heavy filter by many average citizens. There's a Russian guy who popped up on another forum I frequent, and he's pretty much the living embodiment of toeing the party line. "The Ukrainian government are Nazis, and we need to protect Russians!" It's either hilarious or frightening, depending on how you look at it.
-
russia's free press at work (http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/09/05/team-fortress-2-poster-mistaken-for-us-propaganda-on-russian-state-television/)
-
This has little to do with it being free or not, but with Russians hiring idiots as journalists. :) It seems to be cited as an example of anti-German US propaganda, let's just say WWI had more than enough genuine examples of propaganda posters like this (though this being TFII, the style is more Cold War-like). It was part of an attempt to make a jab at the US, but "free" doesn't mean "impartial" when it comes to media (it just means you get a wider spectrum of biases. :) ).
The economic conditions are bad, but there's one more thing that makes it much worse: free press!
Eeehhh, I'm not so sure it's all that "free" these days, though almost certainly better than it was during Soviet times. Putin has a pretty heavy stranglehold on the national press, and even outside information seems to get viewed through a particularly heavy filter by many average citizens. There's a Russian guy who popped up on another forum I frequent, and he's pretty much the living embodiment of toeing the party line. "The Ukrainian government are Nazis, and we need to protect Russians!" It's either hilarious or frightening, depending on how you look at it.
It's still incomparably more free than during most of the Soviet Union's existence. "There is no news in "Pravda" and no truth in "Izwestia".", as the old joke goes (and this was all they had back then). While the government still filters "important" things, it no longer keeps people completely in the dark about things like economy or science. Also, they now have internet, which is notoriously difficult to screen. Either way, they know much, much more about what's happening than they used to.
-
(though this being TFII, the style is more Cold War-like)
It absolutely is not, TF2's visual style is a riff on early 20th century commercial illustrations.
-
This has little to do with it being free or not, but with Russians hiring idiots as journalists. :)
The clever ones are either killed or gone to other venues.
-
You do know that Russia has SERIOUSLY advanced since Putin became president right?And for violating airspace,Don't you think American's are doing the same . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#mediaviewer/File:Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG
-
And? As the article I linked to in the first post points out, there doesn't seem to be a connection between the exploding economy and the general outlook people have on life. To quote the article:
And then there is the dying. In a rare moment of what may pass for levity Eberstadt allows himself the following chapter subtitle: “Pioneering New and Modern Pathways to Poor Health and Premature Death.” Russians did not start dying early and often after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “To the contrary,” writes Eberstadt, what is happening now is “merely the latest culmination of ominous trends that have been darkly evident on Russian soil for almost half a century.” With the exception of two brief periods—when Soviet Russia was ruled by Khrushchev and again when it was run by Gorbachev—death rates have been inexorably rising. This continued to be true even during the period of unprecedented economic growth between 1999 and 2008. In this study, published in 2010, Eberstadt accurately predicts that in the coming years the depopulation trend may be moderated but argues that it will not be reversed; in 2013 Russia’s birthrate was still lower and its death rate still higher than they had been in 1991. And 1991 had not been a good year.
In other words, yes, there was an economic upturn, but it seems to have been largely irrelevant to the crisis under discussion here.
-
And is that a Russian or an American article?
-
Does that somehow change what Russia's trends in birth and death rate are?
-
Actually it kinda does,i don't expect Americans to be as correct as Russians in recording mortality rates,especially if we take in account their hostility towards Russians and use of propaganda.
-
Can you produce better statistics then? Because if you can't, calling the statements in that article incorrect because of "their hostility towards Russians and use of propaganda" is not a particularly convincing way to argue your point.
EDIT:
For the record, the statistics found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia show a more positive picture, with population growth being close to neutral again. Still, the article also states that the death rate is still much higher than in other developed countries.
-
13.3 births per 1000
13.1 deaths per 1000 still higher than most developed countries who have neutral or negative
though yeah 14.3 per 1000 is a bit high
-
You do know that Russia has SERIOUSLY advanced since Putin became president right?And for violating airspace,Don't you think American's are doing the same
Since I don't know to whom this is addressed, I'll only answer the airspace violations since I brought it up.
No, US or NATO has not been violating Finnish airspace. And the answer to the rest of your question is that it's likely that US is violating airspaces elsewhere, but it's not doing that with ours, and that's pretty much what matters to me. And I don't know why US doing that would justify it for anyone.
-
In some Russian mindset, if it's possible somehow that the US is doing it / has done it, then it's perfectly legitimate and rightful for Russia to do as well.
I had these discussions all the time with my dad. "Oh look dad, there go the russians again doing all this sh..." "Bah, and you tellin me the US isn't doing something as well? Nato is so all over this, you are clueless, this is all americans doing all of thi" "but father, this is really Putin doing this" "And that plane that crossed the border like 20 years ago you telling me that was the Russians too?!?" "Dad... sigh".