PDA

View Full Version : Post-Socialist Russia "Missing" 9.6 Million Men in "Demographic Collapse"



Cole Nidray
Monday, November 13th, 2006, 10:02 PM
British Medical Journal, 1999 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116380)


The transition to market economies in many post-communist societies of the former Soviet Union and other former eastern bloc countries in Europe has a produced a “demographic collapse,” a recent report by the United Nations Development Programme has found. Among the most serious findings is a four year drop in life expectancy among Russian men since 1980, from 62 years to 58.

The development programme’s report also noted significant drops in life expectancy in Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania. The immediate cause of the rising mortality, said the report, is the “rise in self-destructive behaviour, especially among men.” Old problems such as alcoholism have increased; drug misuse a relatively new problem in the former communist bloc has risen dramatically in recent years. The report Transition 1999 stated that suicide rates have climbed steeply too, by 60%in Russia, 80%in Lithuania, and 95%in Latvia since 1989.

But behind the self destructive behaviour, the authors say, are economic factors, including rising poverty rates, unemployment, financial insecurity, and corruption. Whereas only 4%of the population of the region had incomes equivalent to $4 (£2.50) a day or less in 1988, that figure had climbed to 32%by 1994. In addition, the transition to a market economy has been accompanied by lower living standards (including poorer diets), a deterioration in social services, and major cutbacks in health spending.

“What we are arguing,” said Omar Noman, an economist for the development fund and one of the report’s contributors, “is that the transition to market economies [in the region] is the biggest … killer we have seen in the 20th century, if you take out famines and wars. The sudden shock and what it did to the system … has effectively meant that five million [Russian men’s] lives have been lost in the 1990s.” Using Britain and Japanwith their ratio of 96 men to every 100 womenas the base population, the report’s authors have calculated that there are now some 9.6 million “missing men” in the former communist bloc. “The typical patterns are that a man loses his job and develops a drinking problem,” said Mr Noman. “The women then leave and the men die, first emotionally and then physically.”

Overall, the Russian death rate from accidentsmost of them involving alcohol has risen 83%since 1991.

UNESCO, 1999 (http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_01/uk/dossier/txt11.htm)

In the former eastern bloc countries, life expectancy has been growing more slowly than elsewhere and is now falling. The trend began in the fading years of communism and has since gathered speed mainly for economic reasons (the massive reduction in pensions) and because of social factors (loosening family ties). Life expectancy at birth in Russia, which rose from 67.6 to 69.2 years between 1980 and 1985, fell to 66.5 in 1990 and 64.4 in 1995. It is also dropping in Ukraine (from 70.4 in 1985 to 68.8 in 1995), Belarus (71.3 to 69.6) and Bulgaria (71.6 to 71.2), though the figure is stationary in Romania (69.5 years).

Deling
Monday, November 20th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Good that this problem is enlightened further. One doesn't need to be a demograph to discover what will happen, when Russian men live 57,8 years generally, and Russian women have an life expectancy of 73-74 years. A giant gap, which Muslims and Asians fill fast as hell. And it's not the woman's culture (Russian) which will be primary.
Then there is no Russian Federation, but a Muslim Federation, and it's partly the fault of the decadent European male; in this case, the Russian. Russia will be doomed sooner than Europe and the English-speaking world, if the trend continues, it's 20-25 or so years we're talking about.

Russia isn't the promised land of the White Race or something, which some people tend to believe.

Cole Nidray
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 09:15 AM
Russia isn't the promised land of the White Race or something, which some people tend to believe.
Agreed. That's why it needs National Bolshevism/Communism, progressive collectivist fanaticism is the only hope against Islam and liberalism/capitalism. It needs less of David Duke who supports the Orange Revolution solely because Yushchenko angered a few Jews :doh - and more Dugin and Zyuganov.

Spjabork
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006, 09:57 AM
One doesn't need to be a demograph to discover what will happen, when Russian men live 57,8 years generally, and Russian women have an life expectancy of 73-74 years. A giant gap, which Muslims and Asians fill fast as hell.(...) Russia will be doomed sooner than Europe and the English-speaking world, if the trend continues, it's 20-25 or so years we're talking about.
In mid-2000, Russias population was 145.5 million. Last year it stood at some 140 million, a drop of one million per year(!). At some time between 2002 and 2004, Pakistan and Bangladesh(!) have overtaken Russia in terms of population.

Two days ago, I was shocked to read that Indonesia - being dubbed the "biggest Muslim nation" - now has 240(!) million people. As the figure of mid-2000 was given with 208 million, obviously either of these figures must have been outright wrong or kind of "misperpetuation". And Vietnam, host nation of the APEC, is reported with 84 million at the moment. As it had nearly 80 million in 2000, it must have replaced Germany (82 mill.) at some point in 2004.

Here a chart of the 14 most populous countries as for now:
1. China........1.3xx.000.000
2. India.........1.0xx.000.000
3. USA............300.000.000
4. Indonesia.....240.000.000
5. Brasil...........17x.000.000
6. Pakistan.......14x.000.000
7. Bangladesh...14x.000.000
8. Russia.......139.000.000
9. Japan..........127.000.000
10. Nigeria.......12x.000.000
11. Mexico.......1xx.000.000
12. Vietnam.......84.000.000
13. Germany......82.000.000
14. Philippines....8x.000.000

There are some uncertainties. Nobody knows the exact number of Mexicans and were they live. About Nigeria I am not sure; it may well have overtaken Japan already. It was reported that Japan's population in 2005 for the first time since the war didn't grow. The Philippines were near to Vietnam in 2000, so probably they are also near now, i.e. ahead of Germany. Pakistan and Bangladesh may have switched their position.

When Hitler heard in 1942, that India was reported with 340 million or so, he said: "This figure is frightening, a little."

VseUmnieYaDurak
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006, 09:40 PM
Agreed. That's why it needs National Bolshevism/Communism, progressive collectivist fanaticism is the only hope against Islam and liberalism/capitalism. It needs less of David Duke who supports the Orange Revolution solely because Yushchenko angered a few Jews :doh - and more Dugin and Zyuganov.

Lol:D :thumbup Putin is in no way better than Yuschtschenko or Yeltsin.
We don't need Communism/National Bolschevism or any other sort of collectivism, 'cause every new ideology will just use Russians as a human material for fulfilling their universal projects. The same with the Orthodox Church and all Christianity btw., which is in no way better than Islam. Putin has had 7 years to improve the situation, he did nothing. Chechnya managed to preserve it's territorial integrity and to make Russia it's part.
Zyuganov is just ridiculous. And Dugin is the one I know personally, he seemed clever in the 90-th, but in fact he's a selfish, self-concentrated person, not especially honest, btw.

Spjabork
Friday, November 24th, 2006, 07:43 AM
Putin is in no way better than Yuschtschenko or Yeltsin.
I am not Russian. But I think Yeltsin was the ultimate ground zero, the absolute edge of degradation and degeneration. Nothing and nobody can nor could be worse than this bum. Putin is no superhero, but compared to Yeltsin almost a gift from heaven.

We don't need Communism/National Bolschevism or any other sort of collectivism, 'cause every new ideology will just use Russians as a human material for fulfilling their universal projects.
This is our destiny. Man on his own is nothing. Only groups can achieve.

You don't want to devote yourself to a higher purpose? So what are you in this world for? To enjoy your (short) life? Please do it, and make way for the real men who do have other and higher aims. You will be fertilizer for them.

The same with the Orthodox Church and all Christianity btw., which is in no way better than Islam.
Why should it be "better"? It is yours, Islam is not yours. That's all and that's enough.

Orthodox Christianity was and is the foundation of the Russian High Culture (as Catholicism has been of the Western High Culture), Bolshevism supposedly was the high-rise. If you don't want to erect something on the basis, then... thery simply will nothing come out of it.

You will be a short footnote in the book of world history.

Putin has had 7 years to improve the situation, he did nothing.
No matter what you think of Putin: he has taken on the jews, which is in these days something extraorinary, something very special and daring.

He has shown that it is possible to do something, at least to try it and not just to drawn in fatalism.

Chechnya managed to preserve it's territorial integrity and to make Russia it's part.I just don't get whether you greet this or regret?

Zyuganov is just ridiculous. And Dugin is the one I know personally, he seemed clever in the 90-th, but in fact he's a selfish, self-concentrated person, not especially honest, btw.
We all over the world see and share the same problem of "our" leading personnel being third class or lower.

I do not have a plausible explanation for that phenomenon. We used to say in German: "Wo Gefahr ist, wchst das Rettende auch." (Where is danger, there the medicine grows, too." But it seems not to be so. We have plenty of sickness and no medicine at all as far as you see...

Maybe it has something to do with the modern media: each and every great pretender comes under close scrutiny very soon and simply by that doesn't seem so "great" even before he has got a name.

Hitler - I am sure - wouldn't have made it in an age of mobile phones and internet forums. Neither would have Stalin.

Btw, I'd say Putin is second class.

Deling
Friday, November 24th, 2006, 03:42 PM
"I am not Russian. But I think Yeltsin was the ultimate ground zero, the absolute edge of degradation and degeneration. Nothing and nobody can nor could be worse than this bum. Putin is no superhero, but compared to Yeltsin almost a gift from heaven."

I don't think a mix between a desktop Chekist and a wannabe-Czar is any gift from heaven. Putin has stabilized the oligarch rule, which Eltsin couldn't, and now there's no opposition to the Gazprom-Oligarch state which Russia is. It's all about stealing everything Russians were FORCED to build up AGAINST THEIR WILL 1917-1991, and Putin is just the gatekeeper guaranteeing this theft.

" This is our destiny. Man on his own is nothing. Only groups can achieve.

You don't want to devote yourself to a higher purpose? So what are you in this world for? To enjoy your (short) life? Please do it, and make way for the real men who do have other and higher aims. You will be fertilizer for them."

Collectivism is a sickness of a dying civilisation. Do collectivism creates purposes? It creates only uniformism; "comrades" out of husband and wife, "worth" out of life and culture, empty "individuals" out of color-full personalities... Non-conformist way of life is strangled, whether it's the Aristocratic outlook of the German settlers in East Europe, the Cossacks of the forests and steppe, the Reindeer tradition of Saamis.

I've never seen collectivist life-style create anything other than the DEGRADATION of life to something utterly primitive, material, animalistic in every regard: purpose of life, relation between the sexes, culture (primitivized, animalized, bourgeousified). No thanks to collectivist experiments! (but that doesn't mean that thinking in terms of society is to be trashed, but collectivism is something else).

Collectivism has already murdered aprox. 70 million Russians, physically. Indirectly, the harm isn't possible to even imagine. Why should the Russians relive collectivist horror again? Less collectivism will be better for Russia, but a welfare state of somekind, money easily taken from Gazprom, would be enough of collectivism - but no; Gazprom money goes to the bank accounts of the oligarchy.
And Western collectivism, americanism/ European multi-culturalism, is just as harmful.

"No matter what you think of Putin: he has taken on the jews, which is in these days something extraorinary, something very special and daring."

He took on Jew Berezovskij, because Berezovskij demanded that Putin obeyed him and Jew Abrahmovitj - whom made Putin inherit the Presidential title from Eltsin. Jew Gusinskij, who criticized the first Chechnyan war, was also purged.

...but two purged Jew Oligarchs out of seven (of the eight richest), says nothing. The Russian state is infested with Putin's jews, and I don't believe in "ZOGs" nor am I anti-semite, but in the case of Russia atleast I believe in ZOG.

Vingolf
Friday, November 24th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Collectivism is a sickness of a dying civilisation. Do collectivism creates purposes? ... I've never seen collectivist life-style create anything other than the DEGRADATION of life to something utterly primitive, material, animalistic in every regard: purpose of life, relation between the sexes, culture (primitivized, animalized, bourgeousified). No thanks to collectivist experiments! (but that doesn't mean that thinking in terms of society is to be trashed, but collectivism is something else).

- What you're really saying here is: "No thanks to world history!". Do you consider 95% or so of world history to consist of degradation and sickness of dying civilizations?


Collectivism has already murdered aprox. 70 million Russians, physically.

- Has collectivism ever murdered anyone?


Less collectivism will be better for Russia, but a welfare state of somekind, money easily taken from Gazprom, would be enough of collectivism - but no; Gazprom money goes to the bank accounts of the oligarchy.

- How do you know that less collectivism will be better for Russia? There's no tradition for individualism in the Western sense in Russian history. Actually, in Russian context, it seems that anti-collectivism = anarchy.

VseUmnieYaDurak
Friday, November 24th, 2006, 05:41 PM
I agree with Deling.
Spjabork said something about Eastern and Western Christianity, that is, according to him a foundation of the European "High Culture", it's just a bosh. Christianity was an illness and is it. And it's in no way more "our", than Islam. They both have the same roots, that have nothing to do with Europe. The greatest achievements of Bolshevism were - total literacy, high-developped industry, space exploration and scientific atheism.
Science is much closer to heathenry, than these stupid, based on nothing abrahamist religions.

Spjabork
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Spjabork said something about Eastern and Western Christianity, that is, according to him a foundation of the European "High Culture", it's just a bosh.
Well, you may say Christianity hindered and hampered Western Culture. You also may say it stitched and stirred it. It's a question of interpretation.

In the Union Jack you find a red cross on a white. The Skandinavian countries bear crosses in their flags. The symbol of the Prussian, later German armies was and still is a black cross. All these crosses are "the" Christian cross. They do not have to be this now, but they stem from that.

Christianity was an illness and is it. And it's in no way more "our", than Islam.Well, didn't you have early in your life several children's diseases? And didn't you overcome them and didn't they make you stronger? Let's take Christianity as a children's disease.

That's why I said: build something upon the foundation.

They both have the same roots, that have nothing to do with Europe.
Yes, Western Europe and Catholic Christianity have nothing to do with each other. Exept 1'500 years of common history.

Nothing has to do with nothing and everything with everything. Do you think ZEN-Bhuddism has anything "to do" with Japan? Do you think Karate is a "Japanese" martal art?

The greatest achievements of Bolshevism were - total literacy, high-developped industry, space exploration and scientific atheism. Science is much closer to heathenry, than these stupid, based on nothing abrahamist religions.
You misunderstand. I am not a champion of Christ.

Although "science" also is a sort of religion, and the belief in science is a religious belief, it is certainly preferable to Christianity.

But in the world history as it was - not as it should have been - it seems as if Christianity has been a stage in our development, whether necessary or not. And don't forget that Stalin was Orthodox seminarist and Hitler was server in the Holy Mass. It doesn't mean that they were this or that. But it means certainly some "trimming".

Deling
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 12:55 PM
"- What you're really saying here is: "No thanks to world history!". Do you consider 95% or so of world history to consist of degradation and sickness of dying civilizations?"

Of course, I don't believe in "world history". There's nothing of that kind, and it can't be proven that such an teleological essence exist.

The histories of the human specimen is the history of grandeur and decline, so you've understood me correctly. When it comes to philosophy of history, I read Spengler and Evola.

"Has collectivism ever murdered anyone?"

It's a tricky question. People tend to claim that "capitalism has killed 1 billion people, just as communism..Christianity" and so on, but it's a complicated thing to claim.
However, collectivist uniformity is not a diffuse ideology, but a social trend, and yes; Collectivism has been responsible for billion deaths. Not just in Russia, China a.s.o, but also in Britain, America, in Europe, in islamist Iran. But since we discuss Russia, the collectivizing killed aprox. 70 million physical beings, and destroyed the back-bone of rural peasanty (from 90% to 10%), macro-cultures, traditions, the estates (old order), and ALWAYS degenerates the demographical trend (decline in births). Now everyone lives crowded in giant cities, while 15 million km2 is densily populated. Collectivism is murder of a nation's history, it's ethos and ethnos, to make it forget itself. George Orwell's "1984" is still the best description of Collectivist tyrannies, everywhere, whether it's Hitler's Germany, Stalin's SSSR, Mao's China, Tito's Yugoslavia or SAP's Sweden.

"- How do you know that less collectivism will be better for Russia? There's no tradition for individualism in the Western sense in Russian history. Actually, in Russian context, it seems that anti-collectivism = anarchy."

Of course there's never been individualism, atleast not before the entering of the modern world in Russia (and communism), since individualism is the atomic part of collectivism. Collectivism is the antithesis of PERSONALITY, since personalities are anti-uniform. Individuals are soulless, character-less; thus the structure of collectivist uniformity.
But regarding Russian history, you're wrong to claim that it's collectivist. Fact is, Anarchy has been the norm in the land of forests and steppes, not collectivist uniformity. Funny thing; all Anarchist ideologists have been Russian (Kropotkin, Bakunin, Netjajev ... ...). Anarchy and personality has been the ideal of the Russian free man and noble for centuries. However, since Petrinism made Russia a part of Europe, culturally and spiritually, the trend towards Collectivist tyranny has been outlaid. Look at the Cossacks, these bands of anarchs were formed because of Petrine (and later Bolshevik/Modern) tyranny.
However, tyrannical collectivism has annihilated Russian history to such an extent that few Russians know anything of the age before Communism, not to mention Petrinism. So because of this, Russians are collectivist people, but they originally aren't. Few European nations have had a general spirit of Collective will, clan-based societies. Rather, the norm has been the free man, the aristocratic spirit (Faustian ethos). But modernity have destroyed that, we are all soulless individuals now living in the Collective.

Agrippa
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 06:18 PM
Collectivism is a sickness of a dying civilisation. Do collectivism creates purposes? It creates only uniformism; "comrades" out of husband and wife, "worth" out of life and culture, empty "individuals" out of color-full personalities... Non-conformist way of life is strangled, whether it's the Aristocratic outlook of the German settlers in East Europe, the Cossacks of the forests and steppe, the Reindeer tradition of Saamis.

I've never seen collectivist life-style create anything other than the DEGRADATION of life to something utterly primitive, material, animalistic in every regard: purpose of life, relation between the sexes, culture (primitivized, animalized, bourgeousified). No thanks to collectivist experiments! (but that doesn't mean that thinking in terms of society is to be trashed, but collectivism is something else).

Actually, Collectivism, being correctly understood, is just the opposite of Individualism. I personally dont think extreme Collectivism reducing humans to expendable ants nor extreme Individualism no longer caring for others, the group and longer term future being wholesome and healthy. One needs to balance things out.
I propose such an approach:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=73299&postcount=27


-Individuals got their worth on its own but the collective is usually more important because it is made up by many individuals and it survives individuals.

Of course, the group is more important than individuals, but if the group and leadership decides against the good of an individual, this should have a clear purpose, namely the protection of the majority of individuals and the good of the group as a whole: Just think about a violent criminal.

I agree that Russia has some kind of brutish Collectivism deep in its heart, which doesnt care for the individuals suffering and fate, whats happening on the streets, the poor, in the army, with victims of terror is just all the same, it speaks about the disrespect of individuals - and as things are, there is no "higher purpose" excuse in too many cases, because what higher purpose in such a corrupted state?
On the other hand they plan more for their nation and state in Russia than in most Western states, but ok, thats not that difficult...

Russia is finally going down as the rest of the West, so one cannot speak of a successful policy if looking at this:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=696264&postcount=1



Collectivism has already murdered aprox. 70 million Russians, physically. Indirectly, the harm isn't possible to even imagine. Why should the Russians relive collectivist horror again? Less collectivism will be better for Russia, but a welfare state of somekind, money easily taken from Gazprom, would be enough of collectivism - but no; Gazprom money goes to the bank accounts of the oligarchy.
And Western collectivism, americanism/ European multi-culturalism, is just as harmful.

Thats no truthful Collectivism in any case, because the group being not valued more than the profits of a minority, which is typical for a very individualistic outlook in which the resistance against that exploitation by the plutocratic Oligarchy, be it in the USA or Russia, is low and presented as something "illegitimate". The arguments those are using which defend this Oligarchy are often quite similar to those of "honest Liberal-Individualists", or they "fake collectivists approach" just for controlling the masses with lies.

If one just uses a fake of something as an excuse for exploitation by his own, how can one blame what this negative individual faked and manipulated? Even on the contrary, if taking Collectivism seriously it would be best mean against that kind of degeneration. The problem is that it wasnt being taken seriously so far and the base of Marxist Collectivism and Collectivism being understood as some kind of degrading conformism is indeed nothing desirable.

On Individualism:
http://forums.skadi.net/my_own_political_philosophy_and_stance_t owards_individualism-t76327.html?

Actually I appreciate valuable and true occidental Individualism which includes the personal resonsibility for the own actions and group, I mainly oppose the Western "Individualism-ideology" of the masses which just breeds degraded, irresponsible and destructive individuals which might feel in their corrupted way even "very special about having a piercing in their genitals" while being just the a herd of baaing sheeps for the plutocratic Oligarchy.

What a true and high level Collectivist society needs are well educated and personally responsible individuals, not a dumbed down mass. Arguing against the latter means to argue against Liberalcapitalism and the current "Individualism ideology" as well as against certain primitive or misdirected forms of Collectivism, but not collectivist approaches in general I'd say.

Vingolf
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 08:43 PM
Of course, I don't believe in "world history". There's nothing of that kind, and it can't be proven that such an teleological essence exist.

Does the term 'world history' necessarily imply teleology? What do you mean when you say that you don't "believe in world history"? Could you be more specific?


The histories of the human specimen is the history of grandeur and decline, so you've understood me correctly. When it comes to philosophy of history, I read Spengler and Evola.

So, you subscribe to a Spenglerian philosophy of history, but you don't believe in 'world history' because of its teleological essence?



However, collectivist uniformity is not a diffuse ideology, but a social trend [...]

Collectivism - a "social trend"? Isn't it rather a cultural trait?



Collectivism has been responsible for billion deaths. Not just in Russia, China a.s.o, but also in Britain, America, in Europe, in islamist Iran. But since we discuss Russia, the collectivizing killed aprox. 70 million physical beings, and destroyed the back-bone of rural peasanty (from 90% to 10%), macro-cultures, traditions, the estates (old order), and ALWAYS degenerates the demographical trend (decline in births). Now everyone lives crowded in giant cities, while 15 million km2 is densily populated. Collectivism is murder of a nation's history, it's ethos and ethnos, to make it forget itself.

I still fail to see how collectivism is responsible for "billion deaths". Collectivization is really not about collectivism, but about politics, regimes etc. And why do you claim that collectivism "is murder of a nation's history, ethos and ethnos"? I'm actually starting to wonder what you actually mean by "collectivism".


George Orwell's "1984" is still the best description of Collectivist tyrannies, everywhere, whether it's Hitler's Germany, Stalin's SSSR, Mao's China, Tito's Yugoslavia or SAP's Sweden.

SAP's Sweden - a "collectivist tyranny"? Do you actually claim that Sweden is in the same category as Stalinist Russia and Maoist China?



... individualism is the atomic part of collectivism.


Could you be more specific? What do you actually mean by those terms?


Collectivism is the antithesis of PERSONALITY, since personalities are anti-uniform. Individuals are soulless, character-less; thus the structure of collectivist uniformity.

What is 'personality', then, since individuals are not personalities? Are individuals collectivistic?


But regarding Russian history, you're wrong to claim that it's collectivist.

Can you give grounds for that statement - opposed to a huge body of scholarly work in the field?



Fact is, Anarchy has been the norm in the land of forests and steppes, not collectivist uniformity.


Anarchy - defined as an absence of government, authority or established order, a state of lawlessness or political disorder - is not individualistic, nor is it anti-collectivist. Anarchy defined as a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government, does not belong to the realm of history (being a utopian society).



Funny thing; all Anarchist ideologists have been Russian (Kropotkin, Bakunin, Netjajev ... ...).

Some, not all, Anarchist ideologists have been Russian. Bakunin, Kropotkin - and to some extent Netjaev - got their ideas while living in exile in the West.


However, since Petrinism made Russia a part of Europe, culturally and spiritually, the trend towards Collectivist tyranny has been outlaid.

Superficially, yes. Petrinism was restricted to the Russian elites, though.


Look at the Cossacks, these bands of anarchs were formed because of Petrine (and later Bolshevik/Modern) tyranny.

The Cossacks existed 400 years before Peter the Great.


So because of this, Russians are collectivist people, but they originally aren't.

Give me some facts proving your case. Was the mir collectivist or not?


Few European nations have had a general spirit of Collective will, clan-based societies. Rather, the norm has been the free man, the aristocratic spirit (Faustian ethos).

You're talking about North Western, Germanic Europe. Eastern Europe and Russia is quite a different story.



But modernity have destroyed that, we are all soulless individuals now living in the Collective.


Depends on what you mean by "collective". States? Societies?

VseUmnieYaDurak
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 09:04 PM
To Hyperboreus:
Well, actually Deling is right about Russia.
This is a list (far from being full) of Russian political realities that had nothing to do with collectivism in it's Asian sence:
Novgorod Republic
Pleskau principality
Great Principality of Lithuanians, Russians and Zemaitis (90% of population - Russians, elites - Russian and Lithuanian aristocracy)
Zaporozhskaya Setch (Ukrainian Cossacks, considered themselves to be a "rus(s)kiy narod" - "Russian people")
Don, Yaik (river, today - river Ural), Siberian, Semirechenskiye ("Seven-rivers"), Transbaikalian Cossacks
Pomors
Ermak (colonisators of Siberia)
Russian Siberians in 16-beginnig 20 century.

The eternal source of collectivism in Russia is only one place - Moscow, that it's rights to rule over the hole Russia (formally) from the Asian Empire - the Golden Horde.

Agrippa
Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 09:26 PM
Few European nations have had a general spirit of Collective will, clan-based societies. Rather, the norm has been the free man, the aristocratic spirit (Faustian ethos).

Thats a misinterpretation of historical reality, because the Western Individualism was born out of the control of the church and aristocracy which destroyed the free peasantry, subjugated and socially disciplined them. Western (pseudo) Individualism was just possible because those nations were already fully disciplined and well ordered with hard measures and indoctrination, thats why such a social model doesnt work with nationalities which weren't socially disciplined and are not as corrupted by hedomatism, the new religion of Liberalcapitalism - or they are already corrupted by its pledge without really participating like they thought they would.

Compare about that with this thread:
http://forums.skadi.net/european_core_banana_and_hajnal_line-t40331.html?

The Faustian spirit was born in the upper classes out of the destruction of more "natural" clan based boundaries and bonds by the church and state latest from medieval age on. When the Western societies became secularised, not much of the former, old Indoeuropean social structures was left, on this mixed Indoeuropean, Greco-Roman and Christian cultural base a new spirit emerged which was "open" - that Liberalcapitalism and Individualism-ideology succeeded so far was for a long time not that secure, and those trends were pushed by certain pressure groups, under which we can find mainly Jews and members of protestant sects living in Anglo-countries.

Compare with this:
http://forums.skadi.net/pan_europeanism_coudenhove_kalergi-t63613.html?&
What Coudenhove-Kalergi wants is of course no real Individualism of independent individuals being responsible towards their group, collective, but a mass of people which is no longer more than just an individual, without greater social networks, higher moral and goals but profits and dull law abiding, useless industrious and hedonistic behaviour in the new state(s) which are just plantagements of the plutocratic oligarchy rather than expressions of the organised will of related people working together for a common future which is the best environment for individuals as well.

Vingolf
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 08:58 PM
This is a list (far from being full) of Russian political realities that had nothing to do with collectivism in it's Asian sence:
Novgorod Republic
Pleskau principality
Great Principality of Lithuanians, Russians and Zemaitis (90% of population - Russians, elites - Russian and Lithuanian aristocracy)
Zaporozhskaya Setch (Ukrainian Cossacks, considered themselves to be a "rus(s)kiy narod" - "Russian people")
Don, Yaik (river, today - river Ural), Siberian, Semirechenskiye ("Seven-rivers"), Transbaikalian Cossacks
Pomors
Ermak (colonisators of Siberia)
Russian Siberians in 16-beginnig 20 century.


I'm not sure what you mean by "collectivism in its Asian sense". Novgorod is in several respects an exception in Russian history, almost an early version of 18th and 19th century St. Petersburg. Pleskau - or Pskov - was for centuries a part of the Germanic Novgorod and Kiev Rus, it was taken by Teutonic knights, and it was for some time a part of the Hanseatic league (so was Novgorod). I fail to see how the other examples you mentioned could possibly prove your case - possibly with the exception of some of the Ermaks and Russian Siberians, who for a large part were outcasts. I'm aware of the fact that Kazak in Turkic means “adventurer” or “free man”, and that they had a tradition of independence and received privileges from the Russian government in return for military services. Originally (in the 15th century) the term referred to semi-independent Tatar groups, which formed in the Dnieper region; the term was also applied (by the end of the 15th century) to peasants who had fled from serfdom in Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy to the Dnieper and Don regions, where they established free, self-governing military communities. Military communities are not what I would call individualistic.



The eternal source of collectivism in Russia is only one place - Moscow, that it's rights to rule over the hole Russia (formally) from the Asian Empire - the Golden Horde.

Moscow has certainly been extremely important in the formation of the Russian state. Collectivism, though, is a cultural, ancient trait.

VseUmnieYaDurak
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 10:45 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "collectivism in its Asian sense". Novgorod is in several respects an exception in Russian history, almost an early version of 18th and 19th century St. Petersburg. Pleskau - or Pskov - was for centuries a part of the Germanic Novgorod and Kiev Rus, it was taken by Teutonic knights, and it was for some time a part of the Hanseatic league (so was Novgorod). I fail to see how the other examples you mentioned could possible prove your case - possibly with the exception of some of the Russian Siberians, who for a large part were outcasts.




Moscow has certainly been extremely important in the formation of the Russian state. Collectivism, though, is a cultural, ancient trait.

Firstly, neither Pskov, nor Novgorod had anything to do with Germanics. I just don't understand the expression "Germanic Novgorod":D :thumbdown Are you kidding? You evidently don't get that it was not a Prince or something who ruled Novgorod, but the citizens of Novgorod who chose a ruler at Veche (Ting) and could drive out the Prince at any moment, what they actually proved many times. You are just exagerating the "importance" of the "racially superior":D Germanic element in Northern Russia. Germanic Novgorod (that has always been Russian, has always been ruled by it's Russian citizens and founded fortresses all over North-Eastern Europe, including modern Tartu (Estonia) and Turku/Abo (Western Finland)), well, this you "Germanic Novgorod" is a full nonsence and illiteracy.
OK, it was in Hansa Union, so what? That fact didn't make it impossible for Novgorod to crash the Teutonic Regiments and the troops of your Swedish Jarl Birger - just because they have always knew they are Russians.
By the way, you are always over-stressing the fact in this Forum, that the Germanics ruled in many European countries for some time, well I'll remind you then, that the daughter of Russian Great Prince Yaroslav the Wise, Anna, was the Queen of France and another his daughter was a Queen of Norway (and not the only one), in 18 centure a common Russian Woman, who was the most beloved, so to say wife of Sultan, co-ruled Ottoman Empire with her husband, in fact he just listened to her advises and doing as she wished.
Secondly,
I fail to see how the other examples you mentioned could possible prove your case - possibly with the exception of some of the Russian Siberians, who for a large part were outcasts.
Well, it's your problem. Most of Russian population lived in the conditions I mentioned. Can't see - buy the glasses.

VseUmnieYaDurak
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 10:49 PM
And okay, you know more than me about Russian collectivism and the "ancient cultural traits" of Russians. I'm Swede here after all, you are Russian, you are welcome.

Spjabork
Monday, November 27th, 2006, 03:13 AM
And okay, you know more than me about Russian collectivism and the "ancient cultural traits" of Russians. I'm Swede here after all, you are Russian, you are welcome.
There are many Germans - actually 90% - who now do not have a good knowlegde of German history.

They are miseducated, belied, degraded, also degenerated to a great extent.

It only means that Germany - as it looks now and if there is no change soon - is finished. Nothing else.

If this applies to Russia too, that's OK.

You tell something about Novgorod etc.

I can tell something about the highly important principality of Bavaria, which finally even became a "kingdom", whose king built a very nice fairy-tale castle, which was named Neuschwanstein. It's really famous with tourists. :)

Many Anglo-Saxons have seen a photo of it. Most do not know this castle is in Germany. They think it's somewhere in Disneyland.

Vingolf
Monday, November 27th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Firstly, neither Pskov, nor Novgorod had anything to do with Germanics. I just don't understand the expression "Germanic Novgorod":D :thumbdown Are you kidding?

No, I'm not "kidding". Medieval Novgorod and Pskov have a lot to do with Germanics.


You evidently don't get that it was not a Prince or something who ruled Novgorod, but the citizens of Novgorod who chose a ruler at Veche (Ting) and could drive out the Prince at any moment, what they actually proved many times.

Yes, thank you, I am very much aware of this Germanic cultural trait in the history of Novgorod. In 1019 Prince Yaroslav I the Wise of Kiev - of Scandinavian-Germanic descent - granted the town a charter of self-government; the town assembly, or veche, elected their prince, chiefly as a military commander.


You are just exagerating the "importance" of the "racially superior":D Germanic element in Northern Russia.

I am not exaggerating anything. You're the one introducing the racial issue here. The question is: Why?


Germanic Novgorod (that has always been Russian, has always been ruled by it's Russian citizens and founded fortresses all over North-Eastern Europe, including modern Tartu (Estonia) and Turku/Abo (Western Finland)), well, this you "Germanic Novgorod" is a full nonsence and illiteracy.

Depends on what you mean by "Russian". "Russians" in the Middle Ages were Germanics (mostly Scandinavians). Åbo has always been a Germanic, predominantly Swedish city. The "Germanic Novgorod" could only be "nonsense and illiteracy" for a dogmatic Russian anti-normannist.


By the way, you are always over-stressing the fact in this Forum, that the Germanics ruled in many European countries for some time, well I'll remind you then, that the daughter of Russian Great Prince Yaroslav the Wise, Anna, was the Queen of France and another his daughter was a Queen of Norway (and not the only one),

They were all of Germanic descent. Kiev Rus had a Germanic elite, and the Rurikovichi (the Rurikid dynasty) ruled the country for 700 years. At least until the 12th century, they spoke a Scandinavian dialect.



Well, it's your problem. Most of Russian population lived in the conditions I mentioned. Can't see - buy the glasses.

I'll get my glasses if you give me some facts and arguments first.

Cole Nidray
Monday, November 27th, 2006, 11:58 PM
But since we discuss Russia, the collectivizing killed aprox. 70 million physical beings
Simply an absurd figure. In 1926 the total population of the USSR was under 149 million. You think almost half of the Soviet citizens were killed during collectivization?

and destroyed the back-bone of rural peasanty (from 90% to 10%), macro-cultures, traditions, the estates (old order)In order to create, you must first destroy. The Communists tore down churches while building hospitals, creches, and schools. After the Orthodox Church had been purged of counter-revolutionary elements it once again assumed a prominent cultural role in the USSR. Orthodox priests were in tears during Stalin's entombment. The 'macro-cultures' and 'traditions' you refer to are nothing more than romanticized backwardness, the same backwardness that had historically left Russia an easy victim to Western, Asiatic, and Khazarian domination before the rise of soviet modernity. The estates that were destroyed belonged to those that kept the population purposely illiterate and enserfed.

and ALWAYS degenerates the demographical trend (decline in births).Population growth rate remained positive in the USSR until its dismantlement.

Deling
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 02:42 PM
"Simply an absurd figure. In 1926 the total population of the USSR was under 149 million. You think almost half of the Soviet citizens were killed during collectivization?"

That figure is probably correct. However, 70 million didn't die in an instance, every generation had its casualties. We can, however, problematicize all numbers and statistics, but it is a fact that collectivization and social repression (not to mention ethnical cleansings) annihilated vast amount of serfs of the Soviet regime.

"In order to create, you must first destroy. The Communists tore down churches while building hospitals, creches, and schools. After the Orthodox Church had been purged of counter-revolutionary elements it once again assumed a prominent cultural role in the USSR. Orthodox priests were in tears during Stalin's entombment. The 'macro-cultures' and 'traditions' you refer to are nothing more than romanticized backwardness, the same backwardness that had historically left Russia an easy victim to Western, Asiatic, and Khazarian domination before the rise of soviet modernity. The estates that were destroyed belonged to those that kept the population purposely illiterate and enserfed."

Well, much is a Leninist myth. Russia was well on the way being industrialized in the early 20th century, and serfdom was more or less non-existent among Russians in the time of the revolution (or coup d'etat). But the Bolsheviks wanted "proletarian Americanism" (to quote Stalin); titanic and fast industrialization, not the slow, preserving-the-estates kind of modernization of Tzarist Russia.
"Romanticized backwardness"...well, don't know what to say. Good that we in Europe are being cosmopolized and multi-culturalized then, so we're free from our Swedish or English idealised backwardness.
Soviet modernity f***ed Russia up, and nothing proves that Russians will even survive this century. The communists wanted everything to be done in a haste, just as they disembled the SSSR in a haste. Both these "hastes" has costed severe damage to the Russian nation, and Russians don't owe the SSSR communists one thing.

I've myself been Leninist, but unfortunately many people swallow the Soviet myth of Bolsheviks as the spearhead of modernity in Russia, saving the illiterate, primitive Russian mass.
RSDRP(b) was NOT that savior, the party just giganticized the efforts of the earlier governments.

"Population growth rate remained positive in the USSR until its dismantlement."

Nope. The years after the second European civil war there were a SSSR baby-boom, but after that the birth-rates declined steadily and fast. The first to predict the end of the SSSR, Emmanuell Todd, predicted the end to 1990 in the middle of the 70's, just because of demographical figures.
So that's just b-s: the Soviet regime couldn't even colonise its Eurasian dominions with Russians after Stalin's death. And in the last 50 or so years Russian demographics has been declining, however; Asian demographics have not.