Kasparov Arrested By Russian Police 374
New submitter perdelucena writes "Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov was arrested outside a Moscow court, where the verdict in the trial of the Pussy Riot group members was being announced on Friday, Russian police said." Update: 08/18 01:14 GMT by T : Kasparov has written an account of the arrest.
Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:um... ok? (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't care about Kasparov being arrested half as much as the judicial farce that was just inflicted on Pussy Riot.
The reason you should care is because the members of Pussy Riot that were given 2 year prison sentences are political prisoners (per Amnesty International and almost every other human rights organization). And if you don't care about political prisoners, then you suck at life.
Smart people are dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Smart people are a threat to those who hold power. Especially the subset of smart people who are politically engaged and willing to put themselves at risk to protest and demand change. And among them, the subset who are world famous and therefore have easy access to the press, well, they are just beyond dangerous.
There is a long history of new dictatorial regimes wiping out, killing, or scaring away all of the educated class, thus making the general populace less likely to organize, garner international attention, or outsmart anyone in the regime. This fits the pattern.
Re:Checkmate. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can play it several different ways.
Arresting a national hero like that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do. We are talking a Russian Chess Champion, something which is what we measure high end super computers against.
Frankly, I don't think we should be concerned about Russian internal politics. We the People, of America don't seem to have our own government in control. Somebody's driving it, but damn it, it's not us apparently.
It's not checkmate for anyone but Pussy Riot. Western decadence will not be tolerated I am sure.
We have nobody to thank but ourselves. We win the Cold War, and then let them rot because we were gloating dicks. We have more in common with them than we can imagine, and damn far more to gain by working together than fighting. Why is that oligarchies, that really controls us, have such short sighted, fear-biting, knuckledraggers leading them?
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.
From the Russian's standpoint, they've given communism and capitalism a go, and neither has made them better off. From a purely academic standpoint, both implementations were so hopelessly banjaxxed that neither 'really counts' as an implementation of either ideology. Now, the younger generation, having heard stories from the older generation about how things were 'better' under the older regime, are falling back into a dictatorship (meet the old boss, same as the new boss). 'Tis Politics 101 -> actual change requires a vast amount of resources, while the appearance of change can be had for a whistle and some bubble-gum, and is often times seen as 'just as effective.'
I imagine what they really want is for the people who've been holding power to 'disappear.' The absolute saddest part of it all is that by the time that happens, an entire new generation will have been corrupted; and thus, this is how this virus continues throughout space and time. Killing it requires a simultaneous attack from everywhere, all at once.
Re:Checkmate. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pull out the old "The US is just as bad" nonsense in response to the Pussy Riot trial. I never could have imagined that person would be so self-centered as to suggest that Russia's problems are our fault, as if the people over there are a bunch of children who couldn't possibly deal with their own problems and need a "grown-up" to come fix things. Yeah, I'm sure the world would be so much better off if the US had sent occupying forces over in the wake of the collapse of the USSR.
Re:The importance of grouping (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Checkmate. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Something I never understood was why the fuck the US cared about the polytical system in a far region.
Well, the ideology was that global socialism was inevitable, but the USSR and China wanted to speed the process up (eg. encouraging and supply weaponry to the Chinese in their Civil War, the North Korean invasion, the North Vietnamese invasion, the communist Afghanistan government, invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, arming insurgents and dodgy governments across the globe [Yemen, Malaysia, Angola, Ethiopia etc etc]).
Then there was the massive Warsaw Pact tank armies poised to drive through Western Europe at a moment's notice. Some of this was "the best defense is a good offense" mindset in the aftermath of The Great Patriotic War (as the USSR called World War 2), but plenty of it was itching to get their hands on more territory too. Fortunately the US, despite its other flaws, had the 'minerals' (translation: testicles; for those in the US), the capability, and (most importantly) the will to contain communist expansion around the globe (since many other countries would wring their hands but then appease the Soviets).
Even the Russians now acknowledge that the Soviet system was a mistake (although as time passes nostalgia is starting to take of the edge off the horrors for newer generations of Russians).
It is an interesting period of history. You can't really understand the post-Cold War of today unless you understand the Cold War. Similarly, you won't understand the Cold War unless you understand the historical aspects of World War 2. It's not exactly "turtles all the way down" but if you want to understand why the US acts as it does (which, on a strategic scale, is usually quite rational) then I suggest you make an effort and trawl through the colossal masses of information available at all levels that describe the relevant history. Then you won't be forced to make statements on Slashdot from not knowing why the actors (US, Russia, Europeans, Israel, Iran etc) act as they do. Good luck.
Re:Checkmate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look you goofy bastards, all of you.
The Cold War ends, do you think the nukes magically vanished into thin air? What do you think happens to nukes when the commander of the base is out farming potatoes to not starve to death? In Capitalist Russian, everything is for sale? Have you ever heard any numbers on how many rogue nukes are floating around from that era? Who the fuck needed to build one when they had a garage sale on them?
You see, establishing healthy relationships with your neighbors in the world is a good thing. The world is a very small place, and we have better things to do than be fucking around with reptile brained, neolithic concepts of property and war, when the clock is ticking against us with global problems. You have to look to the horizon and see the bigger picture. This isn't about imperialism, it's about propagating the universe by getting our asses collectively to space. There are resources there for us all to chew on like Pacman. We need us all out there, we all make up the human equation. Once you poke your head up off the ground and look at things from a bigger perspective, and dare to dream, you might see it too.
Re:Russia or the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Checkmate. (Score:4, Insightful)
One has to wonder...
What makes Russia, or rather, the Soviet Union, such an enemy? Nukes? The USSR didn't have any nukes when the cold war started. And the US didn't cut all ties with England and France when they got their nukes. And the relationship with China even warmed up when they separated their "brand" of communism from Moscow, long after they got nukes at their hands.
I think it's ideology.
The powers that are seem to be terribly afraid that people might consider any social or economic system more favorable to their needs than the one we have currently running. As soon as anyone comes up with a society model that differs from ours, we vilify them. Why? What happened to our spirit of competition, have them compete and let's see which one works out? Instead we fight economy battles of proportions few people even know anything about, something that is actually anathema to our own economy model that allegedly enshrines free trade as sacrosanct.
What are we afraid of? Isn't our system the best there was, is and will be?
Re:Checkmate. (Score:5, Insightful)
to pull out the old "The US is just as bad" nonsense
It is not. Very far from it, but we are getting there:
- Mass media is a government's pet. They either lie (Fox News) or hide facts. There are a few exceptions, like NYT, but they are not read by an average Joe. This is the beginning of a disease.
- We got a common enemy to keep populace in fear. "Look, the Terrorists, they are everywhere! Watch out for the terrorists!"-- This is an old Russian Stalin-era trick to grip power with iron fist =~ s/terrorists/imperialists/
- Phones and other communications are eavesdropped, a-la 1970's KGB style.
- Wall Street peaceful protest members arrested, media members arrested
- Police requested Twitter to provide tweets by Wall Street protest organizers. WTF for? You gona charge them with "hooliganism" now?
So the same shit is happening here, but it is more civilized and convoluted as not to raise too many red flags.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is a grossly distorted viewpoint. There is no way their highly corrupted form of "democracy" or "capitalism", for that matter, was going to be their instant savior. Apparently many people felt that way, but it isn't even remotely realistic.
Well, we had real democracy for a very brief time. I'd say that 1993 and 1996 parliamentary elections in Russia were really free. Of course it was still in the same naive/idealistic atmosphere, which is why a lot of freaks and cooks were elected; but people at least really wanted them there. Presidential election of 1996 was falsified to not let the commies win. From there it went downhill.
We did have real capitalism for a while, too - a while longer, in fact. I know because my mom actually created her business back then. Her main headache was actually organized crime / racket, not the government, but that's what you get in a "wild west" capitalism. Other than that, people could make fortunes out of air with effort and cunning (and, often, with deceit and treachery - but again that's laissez faire for you), and did just that.
The problem is that many people in the USSR thought that, if private businesses were allowed, then anyone could do it and be successful - themselves included. Turned out that's not how it works. A few people got insanely rich. A fair few people, like my mom, were stubborn and lucky enough to persevere and get a decent fortune out of it. Most people got nothing out of it, and their lives became worse, not better. It's why by '96 already more people were willing to vote for a commie president than for Yeltsin, and why they had to falsify those elections.
And if you think their crime is down now, you just aren't looking high enough.
It's certainly down from where it was in the 90s. Again, I would kinda know because I lived there before and after. It's still very high compared to most Western countries, sure, but it's all relative.
Thing is, back then, the government was very inept, and corruption where it existed was local - so e.g. cops would be conspiring with the criminals. Which is why you had to pay to the criminals if you ran a business. These days,corruption still exists, but it's now streamlined and confined to the government & the ruling party. They don't deal with criminals anymore; they take it from you solely for themselves, and every bureaucrat who does it shares with his higher-up. It's a slightly better arrangement because there's no competition (which, in case of criminal gangs, often means burned shops and shot owners).
Re:Checkmate. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that from an outside perspective, it's almost insane to support Putin.
On the contrary, it's very sane, just short-thinking.
The way it goes is this. Under Putin today, a guy has an apartment, a family, a job with a decent pay - enough for good food and maybe even a car - basically, some sense of stability and security. He also remembers how, fifteen years ago, it was practically wild west on the streets, and jobs were few and hard to come buy and paid little. Now the government tells him that "those guys" basically want to rewind the clock back. And, indeed, when he looks, he spots some of the same figures in the opposition camp that led the country in the 90s. It doesn't matter that most there aren't, his attention is focused on those few. Then he's told that the rest are no better, and that they also want to "destabilize" everything. And he goes votes for Putin because, even for all the flaws that he can see around, he lives well enough that he has too much to lose - and he's afraid to lose more than he desires to win.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Even many Americans get this wrong. Coercion, blackmail, protection rackets and monopolies have NOTHING to do with capitalism. At all. Not even close.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means on production. It's completely orthogonal to the existence or non-existence of coercion, blackmail, protection rackets or monopolies. You can have capitalism with them, or you can have something else without them.
Their mistake was actually that they thought that capitalism was inherently immune to all those things. That if you just liberalize the economy, things magically get better because of the "invisible hand of the market" and such. It doesn't. The government still has to actively work to prevent coercion and blackmail, and regulate naturally arising monopolies. Of course, they made it even worse by themselves partaking in coercion and blackmail, and taking over monopolies while maintaining them.
The problem was that they expected that this could happen OVERNIGHT without much effort. Without a lot of struggle and strife. It just doesn't happen that way. Nobody promised them a magical power that could cause this to happen THIS YEAR.
The people were actually promised just that. The leaders... some of them knew they were lying. Others were naive enough that they actually believed it themselves.
I realize that there are many people, like your mother, who bit the bullet and worked hard and got it done. And I am proud and grateful for such people. But from my understanding (and I know a lot of Russians who have come to the US), most people seemed to thing it was just something that would fall from the sky, and became angry when it didn't and they found that the same gangsters they had to deal with before were still running things, just under a different name.
You misunderstand the source of the anger. It's not just that they didn't get what they thought they'd get. It's that other things were taken away from them before, and it was explained that only by taking those things away they can move on to that next better stage, which would be any day now. And the things taken away were things that people happen to value - things like having bread on your table every day, for yourself and your wife and your kids. Having clean water and electricity. Having open schools stuffed with teachers. The state provided them all in USSR, and as part of the reforms of that state they were taken away, and people grumbled, but they were told that they'd get much more and better from a flourishing private market than that if they only just persevere for a year or two. When the promised riches didn't happen, people treated that as theft - and I cannot really blame them for it.
Re:um... ok? (Score:4, Insightful)
People don't care about Kasparov being arrested half as much as the judicial farce that was just inflicted on Pussy Riot.
The reason you should care is because the members of Pussy Riot that were given 2 year prison sentences are political prisoners (per Amnesty International and almost every other human rights organization). And if you don't care about political prisoners, then you suck at life.
I genuinely wish people were this upset when CIA was kidnapping people around the world, shipped them to Guantanamo, tortured them, then released them because they had no evidence.
But no, let's get all upset about some punks getting jail sentence (which will be overturned soon anyway, they were just made an example of) in Riussia.
Re:Checkmate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately the US, despite its other flaws, had the 'minerals' (translation: testicles; for those in the US), the capability, and (most importantly) the will to contain communist expansion around the globe"
The threat of communism was largely used as an excuse to target any left-wing/socialist government or even those that just wouldn't play ball. If a country started doing things the US didn't like e.g. nationalizing an oil company, angering a US company etc, suddenly they would be considered as a communist threat. In the case of Guatamala it was the Union Fruit Company. They owned 42% of arable land due to purchases and/or land being ceded by military dictatorships. When the government of Guatemala tried to free up that land, Union Fruit went crying to the US government. Before long there was a US-backed coup. The official excuse was that Guatemala was going to become a "Soviet beachhead".
We have a similar story when it comes to the Iranian Coup in 1953. The government there wanted a better deal when it came to oil revenue from the AIOC (Anglo Iranian Oil Company, later it became BP), so they nationalized their oil industry. Although AOIC wasn't a US company, the nationalization was seen as a threat to US oil assets. An example that other countries in the region might follow. The US and Britain arranged a coup know as operation Ajax which replaced the democratic government with an unpopular dictator (the Shah) and a brutal CIA-trained secret police (SAVAK) to keep him in power. Again the threat of communism was used as a smokescreen.
Here are just a few US-backed dictators from central and south America alone.
We know the anti-communism crusade was an excuse, not just because of specific evidence in each case (Union Fruit etc), but because US policy towards left/socialist governments has remained largely the same despite the end of the cold war and break up of the Soviet Union. There has been continued interference in the governments of Central and South American states. e.g. Bolivia, through selective funding of parties opposed to Moralez and the coup attempt against Chavez (there is significant evidence of US involvement). Communism was used as a smokescreen during the cold war just as terrorism is used as a smokescreen today.