7 mins read
North Korean soldiers in Russia: Were they ever there?
Their reported sudden departure last week raises a lot of questions
17 mins read
Whether to admire and thank social freedoms and new media or curse them for generalized polarization and social disintegration is a matter of personal belief and choice. Still, it is clear that never in history has there been more opportunities for uninhibited expression of people’s opinions and sentiments than in the age of the Internet and social platforms.
New technologies have made it possible for everyone to have access to diverse information and to feel competent and entitled to communicate their beliefs to the city and the world, to find like-minded people and allies, to see dissenters and opponents. Anonymity and impunity eliminated censorship and self-censorship and allowed expression of irrational feelings and states suppressed by culture and social contract. Human nature and the state of society were laid bare more fully than in social surveys and liberal utopias cultivated by ideology and education.
Today, Facebook has over 3 billion users, YouTube 2.5, Instagram 2, WhatsApp 2, TikTok 1.6, and other global platforms collectively over 5 billion. History has never known anything like this. No amount of control can stop the triumphant march of social media across the planet. Political and economic interests have become intertwined with the ancestral human need to express one’s identity and perceptions, to be noticed, to be recognized.
The gigantic opportunities for free self-expression create a struggle for attention and audience, and in this struggle the aggravation of positions and opinions, scandalous and shocking effects become decisive factors of success. Reliable information attracts less attention than fakes and conspiracy theories.
Totalitarian regimes are incompatible with a pluralistic worldview and social organization. Religious fundamentalism and fascism openly declare intolerance to dissent and dissent. In the Soviet Union, there were slogans about a diverse, national in form, socialist in content culture, in China – “Let a hundred flowers bloom,” but the slightest deviation from the single-party line was severely punished.
The suppression of dissent in a totalitarian regime comes not only from above, from the authorities, but also from the social environment, colleagues, neighbors, even family members. The opposition here is not only an opponent of the regime but also an enemy of the people, an outcast rejected by social relations. The punitive measures of the authorities, as a rule, meet with mass support. Soviet people remember the rallies of many thousands condemning apostates from the United Line, evaders, dissidents, Zionists, and the persecution of Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, and even musicians and theater figures who deviated from the canon.
Such unity ultimately predetermines the degradation and demise of totalitarian regimes. They collapse not so much because of external opponents and internal opposition but because of suppression of intellectual freedoms, competition of ideas and interests, social and economic stagnation, and degradation. Civil and intellectual freedoms and pluralism are objective conditions for progressive development and timely resolution of contradictions.
Pluralism has a rich history, starting with Athenian democracy, its Areopagus, tribunals, street forums, literary, philosophical, legal, and political discussions, schools of thought, and associations. Ancient Israel was the endless dispute of various sects, scribes and Pharisees, Talmudists, and Kabbalists. Judaism developed in many directions and schools.
Christianity and Islam, dissident modifications of Judaism, in turn, divided into many conflicting directions and groups with sharp contradictions, often leading to protracted religious wars. Radicalism, extremism, and terrorism originated as a result of conflicts within and between religious communities.
The light and shadows of pluralism are fully manifested in our time. In the categories of political philosophy, pluralism opposes orthodoxy and doctrinal uniformity and affirms diversity of thought and opinion. Ideally, different interests, beliefs, and convictions coexist peacefully, complement and enrich each other, and contradictions are resolved through free discussion and respect for other positions. It is assumed that from the diversity of ideas, one can choose the best of the best and reject the unproductive and dangerous ones. At least, this is the case in theory.
There is no need to talk about equal access and the influence of social media users. This is a trillion-dollar business, a powerful weapon in the hands of the powerful, the financial oligarchy, parties, pressure groups, and intelligence services. An individual user entering the expanses of the Internet, well understands that if his position attracts the interest of a potential customer, it will be followed by sponsorship, lecture tours, and publications. Or, to present only those opinions and information that are adequate to market demand, “likes” are highly valued by advertisers. One can remain independent by paying one’s own expenses and not hoping for mass interest and financial success.
Another contradiction of pluralism is that even when it is possible to obtain information from alternative sources, the absolute majority is interested only in those opinions that are attractive and confirm the consumer’s beliefs. Worldview positions are not expanded, but only cemented and polarized.
Today there is no talk of tolerance, no respect for alternative opinions, not even Party, ethnic and religious unity. The Democratic Party is split between a decrepit establishment and a young, aggressive, passional progressivism and “revivalism.” At the same time, Trump has never been unified and the favorite of his Party, and as I’ve written repeatedly in my posts, the primary condition for his success is chaos in the Democratic Party. Social media and pluralism without coasts have not created political and social division and confusion but have only adequately reflected the real state of society.
A vivid illustration of this is the reflection in social networks of opinions and sentiments related to the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Even before this event, half of the country considered numerous trials and partisan and media attacks on Trump as an expression of firm law and order and equal responsibility, while the other half saw the same arguments and facts as evidence of harassment of a hated rival, mockery of justice, and “Deep State” dictatorship.
Immediately after the attack, social networks were filled with conspiracy theories: it was all prepared by the Trump camp for P.R. purposes, a conspiracy of left-liberal forces and the establishment to prevent Trump’s victory. No matter how absurd the anti-Trump version is, no arguments will change the minds of its supporters. And no official investigations will prove to its opponents that it’s all about the oversight of the intelligence services and the police.
In a society where paranoia dominates rational thinking, and it is easier and cheaper to buy a battle rifle than to pay for a decent education and health insurance, a terrorist act is an ultimatum declaration of position and conviction that becomes an argument in public discourse.
Biden’s call of “Everyone needs to chill” and “There is no place for terrorism in America” is empty rhetoric. America ranks first in violence among democracies. Dialogue and compromise are impossible when opponents are convinced that their opponents are enemies of democracy, destroyers of the country, and a threat to civil peace and harmony.
Has pluralism overstepped the boundaries of reason and public interest? Has it not brought society to a schizoid split? The answer is ambiguous. It is widely believed that today, on the contrary, pluralism is suppressed by the hegemony of liberalism and left-wing radicalism. Orthodoxy and the right try to put their own limits, but in the present context, they are immeasurably weaker than their opponents. The situation in universities and schools, as well as mainstream media and social media, is the most visible evidence of this. Progressives and their allies are rapidly consolidating their positions in government agencies, legislatures, and religious institutions; uncontrolled immigration and new demographics are strengthening their radical positions. Harris fully epitomizes the new social atmosphere.
The development of economy, trade, and cultural exchange has predetermined the strengthening of international ties, mobility, and openness of state borders. There are more than 200 countries in the world today, and only a few of them can be categorized as mono-national: Japan, Poland, Denmark, North Korea, South Korea, and Iceland. The majority of the world’s population lives in multinational countries. Among the largest multinational states are India, China, Mexico, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Indonesia, USA, Canada, Spain, Afghanistan, and Russia.
Some multinational states live in social harmony, without ethnic conflicts, usually it is a cohabitation of peoples close in history, culture, religion, such as Belgium and Switzerland. But in most cases, even a longstanding neighborhood does not prevent acute civil conflicts.
Colonial empires maintained national boundaries and separation of peoples. Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union took a different path – conquered or annexed territories and peoples became part of the state, but the dominant role of the titular nation was firmly preserved.
The USSR – “The Union of indestructible free peoples united forever great Russia” was a unique historical experiment, realized under the dictates of the Party and the ideology of proletarian internationalism, but the suppression of national characteristics and cultures was part of the state policy. Even now, it is difficult for a foreigner to understand why the Soviet passport did not have a single nationality but a column that rigidly defined a person’s place in the social hierarchy. Russians looked upon non-Russians as brothers-in-law at best. Non-Russians felt they were discriminated against and exploited. The collapse of the Soviet Union exposed the true sentiments; the tragic events of the post-Soviet period are seen by many as a civil war.
The United States is radically different in history and socio-political structure from the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and modern Russia. The Founding Fathers saw the creation of America as a biblical covenant – an immutable civil agreement to live together in equality and freedom. But even here, with advanced democracy, civil liberties, and tremendous efforts to overcome racial, ethnic, and religious divisions, minorities are still convinced of their discrimination and the dominance of “white privilege,” and whites today find it harder to get into university and jobs and get promoted than minorities. “Critical racial theory,” an ideology of “awakening,” is as aggressive as white supremacism.
J. M. Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party, said, “You are a slave in your own country, white man, every year you get less from your labors, every year it becomes more and more difficult to carry the load with which foreigners load you.” Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “The white man is a mortal enemy”…. “They keep the black mind in check,”…. “White people are not yet human beings,”… “Murder and lies are inherent in white people,”…. “White people deserve to die.”
Hopes of overcoming racism and extremism were linked to increased education and prosperity, increased civil rights and democratic freedoms, and nationwide dialog. Cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, the psychology and morality of a global citizen were perceived as a historical imperative, the quintessence of progress and liberal democracy.
Global migration was also evaluated from these positions. American liberalism is much stronger than in Europe, and here, given the country’s history, attitudes toward illegal immigration have always been more tolerant. But sentiment has changed in recent decades. According to polls, 41% of Americans think the number of immigrants should be reduced, 31% leave it at current levels, and 26% increase it. According to Charis Poll, 76% of Republicans, 53% of Democrats, and 60% of independents say that “The character of new immigrants is worse than it was 50 years ago.” 67% are disappointed with the way the Biden government is handling immigration issues.
The fundamental difference between the new migration and the old is that in the past, the adaptation and fate of new Americans was determined solely by their personal efforts and responsibility, and they strove to internalize the norms and values of the new country. Under present conditions, the American taxpayers are responsible for settling immigrants and the uninvited guests have no intention to revise their traditions and assimilate. Such pluralism is neither good for society nor for the seekers of a new life.
Today, the streets and transportation of big cities are filled with beggars, the mentally ill, and the homeless, but illegals live in expensive hotels on full welfare. New technologies and artificial intelligence promise to leave millions unemployed, to make them unnecessary even for exploitation. But these considerations do not stop those who want to use immigration to radically change the face of the country and strengthen their voter base.
There are more than 300 million international migrants in the world today, more than three times as many as 50 years ago. Walls and minefields on borders are not enough to solve the crisis. The solution must be found in the regions where the main flow of immigrants comes from. Not only with economic aid and training, but also by utilizing the full strategic potential of the developed world. Stabilization of the situation in catastrophically disadvantaged countries is an ultimatum condition for the preservation of Western civilization.
Before the DNA era, the main indicators of human identification were gender, family relations, nationality, and religion. Under all circumstances and changes, these characteristics remained stable for the absolute majority, those who deviated from norms and rules became outcasts, were persecuted and punished.
New times have changed attitudes, and the West is ahead of the world here. Here, a pluralistic, alternative approach even to the definition of sex and family has prevailed. About 80% of Americans believe that people of all sexual orientations and preferences have equal rights to employment and choice of residence, about 70% recognize the right to same-sex marriage, and 44% to change their sex. About 8% openly identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender; this does not take into account those who have not yet come out of the closet and allow themselves all sorts of experiments in search of their identity and expanding their experience and horizons.
In questionnaires in the service and in medical institutions, they ask how to address you, but he or she is not enough; there are many options. Experts believe there are more than 50 sexual varieties, and the most progressive claim is that the distinction between male and female is very relative. Restrooms, locker rooms of personal choice. The old dogma “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus” is perceived as reactionary. Determining by appearance and behavior who a man is and who a woman is is sometimes an insoluble task.
The new education begins in kindergarten; school will not always teach one to read and write, to behave in civilized norms, but from the lower grades the student learns that sex is a matter of free choice.
During Covida’s time in exile in the Pocono Mountains, I watched a sad series called a comedy, “Grace and Frankie,” starring Jane Fonda and Frankie Bergstein. Husbands in a long marriage with children reassessed their priorities and decided to embark on a same-sex life. The daughter, a smart, energetic businesswoman with thermonuclear sex appeal, 40, can’t find a partner and pays a prostitute whose wife is aware of her spouse’s profession and has no objections. Her sister is in a traditional marriage with three children, unhappy and ready for divorce. Another couple has two sons, one white worthless jerk, the other black, adapted, the only one in the series adequate, gay. The series was popular, protests and criticism were not aroused.
New mores triumph even in the American heartland. In the Pocono Mountains, I met a same-sex couple; one of the husbands had children from a previous marriage. The couple enjoyed wide acceptance, were always the center of attention, sang in the church choir, and were invited to Jewish festivals. Once, at a neighborhood party, an Asian mother informed the audience that her fifteen-year-old daughter had decided that she was a lesbian; everyone welcomed the news, congratulating the mother on her trusting relationship with her daughter. For some, freedom from centuries of chains and prejudice; for others, Sodom and Gomorrah.
For centuries, the family has been perceived as the primary unit of society, a guarantee of stability. Liberal democracy considers sexual and family pluralism an attribute of freedom and an indicator of its advantages. Today, divorce is not an obstacle to any career or the moral recognition of others. The number of divorces is steadily increasing; this is not counting “open marriages” and other forms of sexual freedom. Scandalous divorces and sexual scams of celebrities only add to the popularity.
Pluralism and the possibility of choice increasingly cover all spheres of social life. Leading religions have many directions and denominations, and in each of them, there are discussions; orthodoxy coexists with reformism, and one can freely choose what to believe or not to believe. Pluralism leads to weakening and lowering the authority of religion but does not exclude bloody inter-religious conflicts and terrorism on religious grounds. The West’s war on terror, provoked by religious fanatics, is not inferior to the Middle Ages in terms of casualties, destruction, and the number of refugees.
Pluralism is increasingly evident in attitudes toward country and citizenship. According to the Word population survey, the U.S. leads the world in national pride and patriotism in the number of people convinced that their country is the best in the world. Paradoxically, this is coupled with a belief, as opinion polls show, that “the country is going in the wrong direction.” The attitude towards the country’s history and its national heroes has changed. It started with the demolition of Confederate monuments, but by now, even Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt have failed to stand on pedestals. Literary classics are censored, school and university curricula are revised in the name of liberal ideology, and burning the national flag is an acceptable form of protest.
At the same time, the cult of racial, ethnic, group values and peculiarities is constantly growing. The search for identity and ancestral ties has become an obsession for many and takes precedence over civic community. Family DNA research is a popular pastime, and there is an active interest in one’s ethnic history. Ethnic and cultural separatism splits society even more than political differences and economic inequality. Parades, demonstrations, and protests express antagonistic group sentiments and provoke contractions; civil peace is preserved only thanks to the police. The slogan of the day is “Fight,” and Trump or Harris, either outcome will only increase polarization.
Jascha Munk’s monograph The Identity Trap has been recognized by many leading publications as the best book of the year. His book “The Great Experiment: Why Differential Democracies Disintegrate” is also highly praised. Munk is a renowned expert on political relations and populism and a leading fellow at the American Council on Foreign Relations.
He assesses the crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of political extremism as a systemic manifestation of the disintegration of society. Liberal ideology views multiculturalism, racial and ethnic diversity, and pluralism of values and worldviews as a great advantage of the social order; Munk sees these features as complex and intractable contradictions that require realistic assessment and adequate measures.
Munk provides compelling evidence of how the struggle of progressives against “white privilege” leads instead of inclusion and diversification to separatism and aggrandizement. Identity displaces universalism, and differences are not mitigated but deepened and sharpened. The author shows how good intentions in the struggle for justice splinter society and worsen the situation of the discriminated. Yet government institutions, education, and the liberal media support futile and pernicious policies.
As is most often the case with popular academic works, the analysis and diagnosis are convincing, but the recommendations for overcoming the crisis are speculative and do not indicate practical ways to implement them.
America has its own unique historical destiny and colossal achievements that have had a beneficial impact on world development. The experience of the leader of the free world is an alternative to the Soviet way of being and thinking, and yet the collapse of the USSR and the post-Soviet catastrophe can be instructive for America as well.