Velvet Revolution, 20 years ago today

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://myplatt.com/updates/velvet-revolution/

The dean of education at my girlfriend's college wrote that.  She was there.  She was one of the brave Czechs who copied and distributed banned books, banned art, banned newspapers, and banned plays. 

[Jocassee]

The philosophy of non-violence, love and peace that Gandhi introduced to us and the Hippies planted in the Sixties in America, we concluded twenty years later in the heart of Europe.

I'll buy the Ghandi bit, but the Hippies...not so sure. I almost prefer Nicolae Ceauşescu-style ending to opression. Kill the bastidges...

[Standing Wolf]

I almost prefer Nicolae Ceauşescu-style ending to opression. Kill the bastidges...

No "almost" for me. Hang 'em high.

[CAnnoneer]

Violent internal revolutions tend to eat their children (e.g. France 1789, Russia 1917). Then one set of oppressors is replaced with another, and not necessarily a better bunch. So, while there is a strong sense of satisfaction in stringing up the deposed, in the end it is usually counter-productive. A "velvet" revolution is less satisfying, but tends to produce better long-term results. This rule seems to hold for all changes of "internal" government.

By contrast, overthrowing an "external" government does not follow the above dynamic at all. I'd say for such all bets are off.

[MicroBalrog]

How many people were killed in the French Revolution?

How many people were freed from literal slavery and/or serfdom?

Conversely, in Russia, after the overthrowing of Communism, many of the former CPSU operatives were left in power under other names, and no lustration occured, allowing their return to power and the installation of Putinism.

[CAnnoneer]

How many people were killed in the French Revolution?

How many people were freed from literal slavery and/or serfdom?

I do not doubt its significance as a vehicle of social change. My previous post was meant to be taken more literally. Strictly speaking, the revolutionary dictatorship was far bloodier and more merciless than the previous regime.

Conversely, in Russia, after the overthrowing of Communism, many of the former CPSU operatives were left in power under other names, and no lustration occured, allowing their return to power and the installation of Putinism.

Putinism, if there is such a thing, is far less bloody than the regime it replaced. Slaughtering the old cadres would have only worsened the long-term situation. It is a cultural thing.

[MicroBalrog]

Putinism, if there is such a thing, is far less bloody than the regime it replaced. Slaughtering the old cadres would have only worsened the long-term situation. It is a cultural thing.

Of course there is such a thing.

And I think Valeria Novodvorskaya, at least, disagrees with you. Should I translate her articles on the issue?

I do not doubt its significance as a vehicle of social change. My previous post was meant to be taken more literally. Strictly speaking, the revolutionary dictatorship was far bloodier and more merciless than the previous regime.

No criticism of the French revolution can be complete without the understanding that, under the Ancien Regime, 500,000 people in the French colonies were owned by other people as slaves, and 500,000 more were serfs. These people were freed, and slavery was not restored again in France. On the other hand, the French Revolution did in fact cause the execution of 43,000-50,000 people. But I think it's arguable that it was worth it.

[CAnnoneer]

Of course there is such a thing. And I think Valeria Novodvorskaya, at least, disagrees with you. Should I translate her articles on the issue?

Actually, I can read Russian decently if not expertly. Post a link or a good excerpt in the original.

I have not heard of her. A quick wiki produced some very interesting quotes:

In 1993 she published a short article "We won't give away our right" (Russian: Не отдадим наше право налево, Novy Vzglyad newspaper, August 23, issue #119[14][15][16][17][18][19]). In it she made controversial claims, like:

    * Novodvorskaya has stated that human rights are not universal. They should be reserved for the moral and "good people", naming people like Khomeini or Kim Il-sung as not deserving rights.[20][21] She looks upon this as justified discrimination.[20]
    * "For example, I'm absolutely not concerned about the number of missiles the democratic U.S. will fire against the undemocratic Iraq. In my opinion, the more the better. Similarly, I'm absolutely not horrified with the annoyance that happened with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But have a look now, what a candy is the modern Japan. Just a 'Snickers'. The G7 meets in Tokyo, there's a liberal parliament. The game was worth of the expenses. I would be just happy if the U.S. preserved all of its thinkable and unthinkable priorities and wouldn't forget to throw sometimes something on those who deviate from the liberal way and behave badly. Unavoidability of punishment is the only thing that can keep the Humankind from political and moral regress. And don't tell me about remorse. A human being has no remorse. Some special advanced specimens have it, but the majority doesn't."[22]
    * "Apartheid is a normal thing. SAR will see yet what order will be established by the native population that is having fun of arsons, murders, violence. They wouldn't feel well of that... Civilian rights exist for educated, gorged, balanced people with good upbringing." [22]
    * "Personally I am quite gorged with human rights. Once ago we, CIA, and the United States used that idea as a battering ram to destroy the Communist regime and make the USSR collapse. That idea is outdated and let's stop lying about human rights and human rights defenders. Other way, there's a risk of cutting the branch we all are sitting upon."[22]

Novodvorskaya was prosecuted — charges were later dropped — for some of her statements in the mid-1990s.[23]

I agree with some of the points, but completely disbelieve the idea that Russia can be a Western-style democracy any time in the foreseeable future, even if all the apparatchiki get taken out today and shot in the back of the head. Again, there are deeply ingrained cultural issues as well as geopolitical influences that make Russian democracy unthinkable.

No criticism of the French revolution can be complete without the understanding that, under the Ancien Regime, 500,000 people in the French colonies were owned by other people as slaves, and 500,000 more were serfs. These people were freed, and slavery was not restored again in France. On the other hand, the French Revolution did in fact cause the execution of 43,000-50,000 people. But I think it's arguable that it was worth it.

Well, that becomes a judgment call, doesn't it? Many people would not be willing to kill 50k to free 500k. Especially so, when it is not an "either..., or ..." situation. For example, I am convinced that both 1789 and 1917 could have been averted were there enough wisdom and leadership on top.

Yet another cost to consider for the 1789-1793 bloodletting is the effect on the intellectual elite of France. The former disproportionately affected the latter. Some might say France has never recovered, especially in science and technology.

[roo_ster]

No "almost" for me. Hang 'em high.

That's my vote.  I'll even buy a new rope.

---

Dayum, I thought I had a dark view of human nature, but Valeria Novodvorskaya has me beat all to heck.

[MicroBalrog]

These are some massively out-of-context quotes. She's known for her radical liberalism.

In the 1960's, Valeria Novodvorskaya was your average Russian girl. Except she was arrested for distributing anti-Soviet leaflets. At a CPSU event. She was promptly arrested and imprisoned at a mental health facility, where she was tortured for several years. After leaving prison, she resumed her activities. Re-arrested again, she was asked, by a KGB agent, whether she 'acted to overthrow the regime'. Her response was for the ages:

"I have, I do, and I will continue to do so. To act to overthrow the Soviet government is the duty of every citizen."

More quotes:

"We are the Russians. Russians never surrender - it is the Soviets who raise their paws."

"The Declaration of Human Rights, the Pact of Civil and Political Rights, the American Constitution - this is the Gospel of the Westernized Russian liberals. We must remember that there are no values but [classical] liberal values, and no way but the Western way. The liberals must raise the banner of freedom upon the hill, and stand under it forever, never letting it touch the ground. Do not trust, do not fear, do not be and do not lie. Do not surrender."

"The United States and Britain are the foundation of mankind. I do not understand why you have a problem with that. They spend immense sums on their military - and the wealth of Europe who does not rests only upon their generosity and their nobility."

[MicroBalrog]

Here's the one I was looking for. Bear with me as I post a translation:

 http://grani.ru/opinion/novodvorskaya/m.161439.html

Here it is. My massively shifty translation:

In August of 1991, Alexander Yakovlev did not let the crowds storm Lubyanka. Gaydar rejoices with him in this triumph. There was no blood. There was no civil war. There was peace. And yet we could have assaulted it. Would any of us, back then,  have refused to give our blood to the very drop for the shiny kingdom of capitalism? One shot from the Lubyanka! One dead man in the crowd – and the KGB men would have been torn to shreds, the Lubyanka demolished like the Berlin Wall, the Mausoleum torn down, Communist activity prohibited, and the KGB disassembled and its membership put on trial (rather than employed on NTV). Lustration would be fulfilled, Communism declared a criminal ideology. Any honest democrat would have died happily for that. And no former Communist would have gotten property – only foreign corporations and Russian entrepreneurs. And Yegor Gaydar would have gotten his reforms.

But the price was not paid. Neither then nor in 1993. Yeltsin felt he owed something to the Army, not to those who stood at the Mossovet. Today it is late. Back then people would have fought against the Soviets and the KGB. But 18 years have passed. We cannot send the people to assault the Kremlin and Lubyanka, because it will turn into a left-wing protest -against the rich, against Bentley cars, against social inequality. Not only the Cheka men live in expensive homes – but the people will turn to capitalism with their backs, and with their faces – to the Communists.

What does Yegor Gaydar rejoice at? We can no longer buy freedom and capitalism with our lives. The shop is closed for re-evaluation. Probably for a century – if not for eternity.

[CAnnoneer]

I will grant that her ideas are both interesting and entertaining, judging by the excerpt. She also has a refreshing style of harsh verbalization. However, practicality and internal logic leave something to be desired.

First off, charging Lyubanka and dismembering KGB personnel smacks too much of 1789, likely with similar short-term consequences - accelerated tribunals, public executions, witch hunts. Who would have administered that, under what authority, with what aims, and with what political support? Democracy? Freedom? Capitalism? Culturally, I don't see Russians giving popular support to "revolutionary terror" in the name of those things. A few crazies may have run rampant for a short time, while the majority would have hunkered down in their homes, just like they always have. Before long, "the liberators" would become the new tyrants, or would be replaced by tougher meaner personages willing to be such, just like Stalin and Dzerjinski pushed out the gentler folk. It is a natural selection mechanism that ensures that bloody revolutions always end up with the worst, most cunning, most ruthless tyrants on top.

The bottom line is, as always, cultural. Western democracies, such as they are, have their cultural routes in a strong and populous merchant bourgeois class, which wants and needs participation in government. That class is a natural counterweight to any individual or group of individuals that becomes too big for his shoes. It is a form of distributed feedback control, which provides stability and balance to government as well as forms its political basis. "Checks and balances" is just the legal manifestation of this cultural and economic imperative.

Russia never had that bourgeois class. Such started to form in late 1800s and if it were not for WW1, they could have become strong and wealthy enough to transform European Russia to something closely resembling Western Democracy. That chance was lost in early 1900s, first with WW1, and then especially after the February revolution, when the bourgeoisie had their chance but blew it, by inexperience and the weight of events. That is why Russia has always been in the hands of "strong men" and their cliques. Slaughtering KGB just makes the killers the new KGB. There is no strong middle class to prevent that.

So, if anything, the accumulation of wealth, albeit in the hands of former chekists, may actually put the country on the way to the production of such a middle class, with a lot of luck. At least, this path has some chance of success. Anything that Ms N. proposes ironically would only perpetuate the cycle.

On a related note, the truly troublesome development of late 1900s is the gradual death of the middle class in the West, which erodes the counterweight and guarantor of the democratic system. It is a sinister noncoincidence that here we feel increasingly disenfranchised as DC moves progressively further out of popular control and representation. While that is becoming the reality of DC politics, tyranny cannot yet officially emerge, because the populace still clings culturally to the democratic ideas. So, the elites are bankrupting the country and impoverishing the middle class. When the middle class seizes to exist economically, people's opinions will radicalize, move away from bourgeois values, and then you have the system primed for dictatorship. It happened in Italy and Germany between the two WWs. Why wouldn't it happen again?

[MicroBalrog]

Stalin and Dzerjinski pushed out the gentler folk.

What 'gentler folk' are you referring to? Bukharin?

On a related note, the truly troublesome development of late 1900s is the gradual death of the middle class in the West, which erodes the counterweight and guarantor of the democratic system

This very much depends on how one defines 'middle class'.

On a related note, the truly troublesome development of late 1900s is the gradual death of the middle class in the West, which erodes the counterweight and guarantor of the democratic system

This is why Robespierre was not executed by the moderates... oh, wait.

There are plenty of countries where violent revolutions had not led to a chain of terror. People mentioned Romania already. Turkey, Haiti, and some events in Ancient Greece come to mind.

But even the French Revolution was nowhere as bloody and terrible as people tend to believe.

Further, I would like to argue that while there was, in 1989, no middle-class in the conventional sense in Russia, the intelligentsia could have easily played its role. These people maintained a reasonable standard of wealth, were overwhelmingly liberal and educated, and stood most to benefit from the revolution.

But I doubt that such a class analysis is really all that beneficial.

[CAnnoneer]

What 'gentler folk' are you referring to? Bukharin?

The weeding out process started first with the bolsheviks taking control of the party and marginalizing the mensheviks. The mensheviks seemed far more moderate, more bourgeois in their ideas, and better able to compromise. Bolsheviks were power-to-the-hilt "proletarian dictatorship". The bolsheviks, being more extreme and violent, won. The mensheviks lost.

Later, Stalin was not at all the obvious choice as replacement for Lenin. In fact, he was not liked that much at all. But, he outmanovered Trotzky and the others. Stalinists won, Trotzkists lost. Trotzky ended up with an axe in his head in exile. Trotzky in my mind is the analogy of St. Just and Robespiere in terms of violent revolutions eating their own children.

Finally, one of the chief points of the initial Stalinist purges was to get rid of a bunch of old-guard communists that would not support him. That goes to centralization of power.

This is why Robespierre was not executed by the moderates... oh, wait.

Actually, it was a very close call. He had lists of new "traitors" to read the day they arrested him in the assembly. The conspirators were terrified of being on the list, so they prevented him from speaking. Because they were likely to be collectively on the list, they were united in self-defense. It just comes to show how crazy and arrogant Robespiere was. If he had singled them out one at a time, they would likely have not organized. But, the butcher got no time for subtleties - he needed to feed Ms. Guillotine to maintain the hysteria and himself in power.

Also, the ones that replaced Robespierre did they own "cleansing", which is only smaller, because there weren't that many left to kill.

There are plenty of countries where violent revolutions had not led to a chain of terror. People mentioned Romania already. Turkey, Haiti, and some events in Ancient Greece come to mind.

Romania was not a violent revolution. All they shot was the gen-sec and his crazy wife, and only after a trial, albeit a kangaroo one. Turkey's revolution (I assume you mean the new turks vs the sultan) also does not qualify, because just a few prominent people were removed. There was no reign of terror as in France and Russia.

But even the French Revolution was nowhere as bloody and terrible as people tend to believe.

On that, it seems we just have to agree to disagree.

Further, I would like to argue that while there was, in 1989, no middle-class in the conventional sense in Russia, the intelligentsia could have easily played its role. These people maintained a reasonable standard of wealth, were overwhelmingly liberal and educated, and stood most to benefit from the revolution.

The intelligentsia cannot serve as a bourgeois class, due to lack of economic power, a class sense, and sufficient cohesion. Intellectuals love to discuss and disagree; they hate to act and work together. Because they have no common economic interests, they do not achieve cohesion of program and action. They spend their time prattling about details. Also, intellectuals were all government employees, so their economic status collapsed when inflation and gov bankruptcy overwhelmed their salaries. Finally, I disagree that they had the most to benefit from a revolution. A successful bourgeois revolution means new economic conditions that require an initial accumulation of wealth. Intelligentia at large is badly equipped to compete in such a violent predatory initial accumulation.