That better? — Isaac

:up:

How can basic human rights be put into the constitution of Russia while keeping western culture out? That is the question. What societies in the world are not western societies, but still has the same human rights as western culture takes for granted?

The question is basically, if Russia were to fix their problems of corruption, if they give their own people human rights, freedom of speech, free media, and the ability to choose their own path as a person, then what type of culture exists with all that, but at the same time isn't western in nature? — Christoffer

Legally speaking, human rights are not Western anymore since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948. Of the 58 members of the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained [BYELORUSSIAN SSR, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, POLAND, SAUDI ARABIA, UKRAINIAN SSR, UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, USSR, YUGOSLAVIA], and two did not vote [HONDURAS, YEMEN].

The UNHR was crafted by an international committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. It consists of 30 articles, focused on so-called first generation political rights, inspired from the French revolution's declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen, and on the US bill of rights.

Other declarations were later adopted on economic rights = so-called second generation rights (eg right to food, to a decent life, to work), under the pressure or leadership of the USSR and other communist states, i.e. those that abstained on Eleanor Roosevelt's list,promoted their own 'rival' list of rights. And the US most often abstained from those votes, and still today does not recognise economic human rights.

This last point is important for your question: while first generation rights are what most people in the West associate with human rights, they are not the whole of it. Historically, second generation rights were the contribution of the USSR to this international debate on human rights. And it is a positive contribution IMO.

The general line of argument from communist states and authors has been: freedom is nothing to a hungry man, so all these political rights mean nothing as long as the poor can't eat or lodge themselves. It's a good argument, IMO. It goes back to Marx' critique of the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen as bourgeois ideology.

Yes, but what about the question of a society in the world right now that functions as an example of being good for the people without being a western country or culture?

My question is if there are societies in the world that have strong human rights and emphasis on freedom of the people, things we often associate with western culture. But that they don't at the same time have the consumerism and capitalism that many say will "creep into" Russia if they get these rights and freedoms?

I'm trying to find the "solution" to the Russian people getting rid of the corruption, the propaganda that at the same time bans free media, killing and imprisoning of state critics, and gaining things like representatives of the people in politics and not self-proclaimed czars in absolute power.
How does that happen without Russia becoming a western society? Aren't these basics of a balanced society where people generally feel well?

My question is if there are societies in the world that have strong human rights and emphasis on freedom of the people, things we often associate with western culture. But that they don't at the same time have the consumerism and capitalism that many say will "creep into" Russia if they get these rights and freedoms? — Christoffer

1. Create a system which exploits workers to put enormous economic and militarily power in the hands of a narrow elite.

2. Use this power to ruthlessly destroy any alternative systems.

3. Point to the absence/destruction of alternative systems as evidence that no other system works.

. Create a system which exploits workers to put enormous economic and militarily power in the hands of a narrow elite.

2. Use this power to ruthlessly destroy any alternative systems.

3. Point to the absence/destruction of alternative systems as evidence that no other system works. — Isaac

This is true except it leaves part of the story out. If your opponent crashes your head into a brick wall, you might stop and wonder if you could have represented yourself a little better.

All leftists everywhere need to shut up and think about that.

Yes, but what about the question of a society in the world right now that functions as an example of being good for the people without being a western country or culture?

My question is if there are societies in the world that have strong human rights and emphasis on freedom of the people, things we often associate with western culture. But that they don't at the same time have the consumerism and capitalism that many say will "creep into" Russia if they get these rights and freedoms? — Christoffer

So you are looking for a frugal, exotic (non western) yet free society. I think a lot of hunter gatherer societies fit the bill. In fact I wonder if those 'god given' or 'natural' rights aren't some instinctive tropism towards the political system that presided over 99% of our evolution time: that of men and women living in roughly equalitarian societies, albeit with an alpha male (and/or an alpha female) leading the group and screwing more than average.

Often, women don't have the same rights as men, in such systems. I think gender equality is a modern concept, and still mainly western (with plenty caveats).

All leftists everywhere need to shut up and think about that. — frank

I thought we were all trying to be more civil...

If your opponent crashes your head into a brick wall, you might stop and wonder if you could have represented yourself a little better. — frank

I agree entirely, but it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the absence of a viable alternative cannot be used as evidence in a system which deliberately destroys alternatives.

Unless, of course, you agree with ruthless competition, in which case, yes, Western capitalism seems currently to be the winner. Not sure that's anything to crow about, but it might just be an uncomfortable fact. For now...

I think a lot of hunter gatherer societies fit the bill. — Olivier5

Probably, but how can such societies function on a large scale, like for example Russia? Isn't such societies functioning because they are small in nature? As soon as society grows so large that systems need to exist to govern the stability of millions or billions of people, what happens then?

Is there any nation in the world that has millions of citizens with all these positive human rights and functions that still aren't western in cultural form?

Is there any nation in the world that has millions of citizens with all these positive human rights and functions that still aren't western in cultural form? — Christoffer

There's India, Senegal and other democratic states in the 'southern hemisphere'. Of course, their democratic 'form' and processes are originally western (representative democracies with parliaments) and there is consumerism in both places.

I meant that their greatest imperialistic efforts look more like an injection of western values than something home grown. Is that wrong? — frank

Peter and Catherine were famously influenced by Western Europe, and to the extent that their territorial expansion sought a status for Russia equal to the Western European powers, then I suppose you could say that Russian imperialism in the 17th and 18th centuries was influenced by Western values. But access to warm water and securing the mountainous bulwark of the Caucasus (although I think the latter was only completed in the 19th century, if it ever really was) seem more basic than that, and could be described as part of their competition with the West, as well as with other powers like the Ottoman Empire, rather than being driven by the West's values. In any case their embrace of Western values only went so far: Catherine resisted reforms as much as she enacted them, and doubled down on absolutism. But maybe you can explain which values you mean. So far you haven't really said.

This might be unfair, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your idea amounts to a kind of orientalism, sometimes found in popular English histories of Russia.

But I guess we're veering off topic.

I thought we were all trying to be more civil... — Isaac

I really appreciated your comment. I meant that leftists would do well to spend a little time in silence reflecting on how much power they once had and how that was squandered.

I agree entirely, but it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the absence of a viable alternative cannot be used as evidence in a system which deliberately destroys alternatives. — Isaac

True.

Unless, of course, you agree with ruthless competition, in which case, yes, Western capitalism seems currently to be the winner. Not sure that's anything to crow about, but it might just be an uncomfortable fact. For now... — Isaac

Ruthless competition is good in some cases. Monopoly works well in others. There are a number of aspects of your environment that originated in Western monopolies. Your phone is one of them. So it's not really an east/west thing.

I think some of the reasons for the failure of leftist projects might have been in the design.

This might be unfair, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your idea amounts to a kind of orientalism, sometimes found in popular histories of Russia. — jamalrob

I really hate bias. I want to gather my own ideas about how cultures work, but I'm aware that simplifying leads to inaccuracy.

I'm sort of stuck with my particular psyche that needs to grasp culture like I'm understanding a person. Then I try to force myself to look at exceptions to my rules as signs that I missed something.

One thing I kept coming back to with Russia was the way it's surprisingly similar to the US. They both have strong apocalyptic streaks and that sometimes influences events.

leftists would do well to spend a little time in silence reflecting on how much power they once had and how that was squandered. — frank

I suspect they have, but we'll let that lie then.

Ruthless competition is good is some cases. Monopoly works well in others. There are a number of aspects of your environment that originated in Western monopolies. Your phone is one of them. — frank

Again, the problem is that destruction of alternatives is part of the system. It makes it very difficult to support these arguments. Ruthless competition certainly lead to the development of my phone, but seeing as 'ruthless competition' was, by design, the only game in town, we can't really say whether it was a necessary, or merely sufficient condition.

My phone also breaks more frequently that it could, it makes it deliberately difficult for me to fix, has built in mechanisms to benefit the corporation which made it (at my expense), pollutes the environment, and exploits child labour. It certainly could be better.

So is capitalism responsible for the good bits, the bad bits, both...? We can't possibly know without the freedom to try alternatives.

There's India, Senegal and other democratic states in the 'southern hemisphere'. Of course, their democratic 'form' and processes are originally western (representative democracies with parliaments). — Olivier5

And this seems to be the crux of the problem. When we see nation's who's transitioning to have better quality for their citizens, their well-being, their rights, their freedom in society etc. they tend to move towards what we define as western cultures.

So as long as we don't have a true example of a large scale society that isn't western, but gives rights, freedoms, and well-being to their citizens, there is a problem with how arguments form to question how nations move toward western standards, like how Ukraine has been doing and Russia don't want to do. I don't think any of the Russians who oppose Putin want anything but to have western standards of living, because it gives them those rights and freedoms. If there isn't a secondary alternative with the same level of quality for the citizens, then why don't we start with western standards and together improve up from there? It's not like western societies are stuck, the philosophical debates about how western societies function are always going on and is always changing things within it. There has to be a starting ground somewhere from which more can be built or rebuilt. But I've yet to hear about another, an alternative "starting ground".

Ruthless competition certainly lead to the development of my phone — Isaac

No. Your phone couldn't have come into existence in a competitive environment. You need a single infrastructure.

The same is true with PCs. You need one common OS to allow the fruition of the technology's potential. Later you can add more OS's, after the initial stage.

These things happened organically. The system is a tool. The vision is ultimately in charge.

One thing I kept coming back to with Russia was the way it's surprisingly similar to the US. They both have a strong apocalyptic streaks and that sometimes influences events. — frank

I keep coming back to that as well. Not particularly the apocalyptic streak, which I haven't thought about, but in other ways there are very strong similarities. It's mainly the exceptionalism, I think, and the assumption that they lead the world or should be doing so. (Obviously this is a gross generalization)

they tend to move towards what we define as western cultures. — Christoffer

They don't 'tend' that way, they are forced to move that way.

Most developing nations have had their resources stolen from them at gunpoint (by the very western societies you're lauding), then when on their knees, they're given loans the terms of which involve the very market changes you're trying to imply just 'happened'. Look up India's debt history and explain how that's just India 'tending' toward free-market economics.

That's not even getting into the pecuniary terms of international trade deals, things like the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the bias in the UN security council, the imbalance in subsidised TNCs...

In new polite terminology, the idea that developing countries just naturally tend toward free-market economics is... implausible.

You need one common OS to allow the fruition of the technology's potential. — frank

My PC runs on Linux.

And this seems to be the crux of the problem. When we see nation's who's transitioning to have better quality for their citizens, their well-being, their rights, their freedom in society etc. they tend to move towards what we define as western cultures. — Christoffer

I think the problem is a logical one: if one defines 'western' as a society enjoying 'their rights, their freedom in society' then by definition all such societies are 'western'.

Historically, the notion of human rights 'appeared' in certain places: the US and France, during two near simultaneous revolutions. Other places back then did not have them and rejected them. Pretty much all Western European kingdoms rejected them. So the idea was not 'western' then. It was just progressive, and stronger here and weaker there by historical accident.

Then a number if things happened which led to all sorts of things including two world wars. At some point Germany, one of the most modern European society, opted (?) for Nazism, following Italy for fascism 10 years before. Again, these modern, industrialized western states did not accept human rights.

It is tempting to subsume history within geography. 'Western' is a geographic notion. But human rights are a cultural concept or practice. They appeared somewhere, as these things usually do, and then they spread elsewhere, as good ideas generally do.

Agriculture appeared historically in the Middle East (and a few other places independently, but the 'West' got it from the Middle East. Does that make agricultural European societies 'Middle-Eastern'?

Nice to see you make a post I approve of :smile:

My PC runs on Linux. — Isaac

Why do you need Linux? But yea. That came from a government regulated monopoly.

Excellent!

But wait... Were the others that bad.... :chin:

It's mainly the exceptionalism, I think, and the assumption that they lead the world or should be doing so. (Obviously this is a gross generalization) — jamalrob

Notice how Marxists think of themselves as special. They have esoteric understanding of history and the world. This is the nature of apocalypticism.

That kind of mentality existed in Russia before the USSR. It's always been in the USA as well.

Notice how Marxists think of themselves as special — frank

Does that apply to everyone who thinks they have a good idea when that idea is not held by everyone? Need I mention the examples of the suffragettes, the Chartists, the 1790s Haitian revolutionaries, etc?

EDIT: I'm actually not sure why you brought up Marxists. The Soviet Union? When I talked about Russian exceptionalism I didn't have the Marxists in mind at all. Most of the Old Bolsheviks were internationalists opposed to all Russian chauvinism.

That came from a government regulated monopoly. — frank

Did it? I know nothing of the history. My point was that it's open source, ie not a monopoly.

Did it? I know nothing of the history. My point was that it's open source, ie not a monopoly. — Isaac

Open source isn't in opposition to monopoly.

I think you missed my point.

I'm actually not sure why you brought up Marxists — jamalrob

Marxism is a form of apocalypticism. It took root in a Russia already steeped in Christian apocalypticism.

I see. Yes, there's some relationship there, in the Russian context, but I was just talking from personal experience about everyday people in everyday settings.

See, if you persist in your terse, cryptic style of posting rather than making clear and expansive arguments, you'll continue to confuse me. You still haven't told me which Western values caused the Russians to go a-conquering.

I think the problem is a logical one: if one defines 'western' as a society enjoying 'their rights, their freedom in society' then by definition all such societies are 'western'.

Historically, the notion of human rights 'appeared' in certain places: the US and France, during two near simultaneous revolutions. Other places back then did not have them and rejected them. Pretty much all Western European kingdoms rejected them. So the idea was not 'western' then. It was just progressive, and stronger here and weaker there by historical accident.

Then a number if things happened which led to all sorts of things including two world wars. At some point Germany, one of the most modern European society, opted (?) for Nazism, following Italy for fascism 10 years before. Again, these modern, industrialized western states did not accept human rights.

It is tempting to subsume history within geography. 'Western' is a geographic notion. But human rights are a cultural concept or practice. They appeared somewhere, as these things usually do, and then they spread elsewhere, as good ideas generally do.

Agriculture appeared historically in the Middle East (and a few other places independently, but the 'West' got it from the Middle East. Does that make agricultural European societies 'Middle-Eastern'? — Olivier5

Exactly, and this leads to another point I've been making a few pages back and it's that whenever people use "western" in a negative way as a counter-argument to people like us who want freedom for the Russian people they are essentially unable to separate between these basic rights and these globally progressive standards, and western culture of capitalism.

I mean, of course there's a way to make a society without capitalism that still has a strong foundation in freedom, freedom of speech, and so on.

However, at this time in history, which nations of the world can present an alternative political and economical form that also has these modern standards of values for invidual people? Because we can sit here and talk about some utopian nation with all of the good things that comes out of political and moral philosophy, but what nations have through time proved to be better for the the majority of its people, in the context of these things? It still needs to be answered in order to have an alternative for Russia if the authoritarian regime collapses and something else is built upon those ruins.

So Russia is setting up a service in which payments received for natural gas will be converted from Euros to roubles, because Germany and other countries refused to pay in roubles, as the original contract did not have this stipulation.

Russia can't really afford to not receive payments for energy supplies, nor can Europe gamble with its energy - this year anyway.

Russia’s Gazprombank is the intermediary for rouble gas payments, Putin order says