SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
I have spent the last several days in Georgia (Sakartvelo, not the Peach State), where the level of irritation with Russia is high. It seems to manifest itself into a particular animus directed at Vladimir Putin – or the stature-challenged Mr. Lilyputin, as some of my Georgian friends call him. A couple of days back one of them was trying to convince me that the assessment presented in my speech from Friday was too positive. I should have dwelt on all of Putin’s bad spots, I was told. Deep in his heart, Putin is a wannabe totalitarian who would dearly love to establish a cult of personality. Why, he has even established an official youth organization. I filed this away for the moment, but my immediate reaction was that they were going a bit overboard, as Georgians are wont to do. But now I see that I dismissed the comment too quickly. Indeed the New York Times, our paper of record, has reported on the Putin youth organization.
As Hannah Arendt chronicled in her great work on totalitarianism, in the period between the wars, dictators of all stripes were quick to form youth organizations. Indeed, they had a special focus on these organizations. They were the “hope for the future,” because they would provide a new generation of perfectly indoctrinated new party members. Every ounce of conventional morality would be wrung from them. They would understand the party as their family, and the leader as their parents. In the Soviet world, of course, there were several organizations that played this role, the most important of which was Komsomol, the Communist youth organization. It provided a model for training, but also for the selection of new party cadres. The young elite Komsomolnets would link with his equals around the country, establishing an elite network just under the surface. Indeed, some have made the case that in the first years following the collapse of the USSR, it was the Komsomol underground that kept the post-USSR alive.
Which brings us to Putin’s youth organization, Nashi. Steven Lee Myers reports:
Nashi, which translates as “ours,” has since its creation two years ago become a disciplined and lavishly funded instrument of Mr. Putin’s campaign for political control before parliamentary elections in December and a presidential election next March.
It has organized mass marches in support of Mr. Putin — most recently gathering tens of thousands of young people in Moscow to send the president text messages — and staged rowdy demonstrations over foreign policy issues that resulted in the physical harassment of the British and Estonian ambassadors here. Its main role, though, is the ideological cultivation — some say indoctrination — of today’s youth, the first generation to come of age in post-Soviet Russia.
To Nashi, young people are neither the lost generation of the turbulent 1990s nor the soulless consumerists of Generation P (for Pepsi) imagined by the writer Viktor Pelevin in 2000. They are, as Nashi’s own glossy literature says, “Putin’s Generation.” “Why Putin’s generation?” Nashi’s national spokeswoman, Anastasia Suslova, asked at the group’s headquarters. “It is because Putin has qualitatively changed Russia. He brought stability and the opportunity for modernization and development of the country. Thus we, the young people — myself, for instance, I am 22, and these eight years were the longest part of my conscious life when we were growing up, and the country was changing with us.”
One of the major questions hanging over Russia today is which way forward? The rise of Nashi reflects a familiar path. But it seems more into the dark past than into a hopeful future.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”