Families, then (Tsar Aleksandr Aleksandrovich loved his wife and kids, never cheated on her, routinely commuted virtually all death sentences to life imprisonment, and hid a bottle of brandy in his boot… what’s not to like?)…
******
families, now…
______________________________
Recently, the role of moral values in society has taken centre-stage in public and political discourse. Increasingly, their status as “universal” is under question, and core fundamental concepts receive new, sometimes contradictory interpretations. We must draw a clear distinction between those indisputable values that guided mankind for centuries over its journey of self-development, and the ultraliberal {“liberal” in the European sense, that is, Anglosphere “conservatism”: editor} trends that flourished in the early 21st century.
The collapse of the USSR and the socialist bloc in the late 1980s took Western academe by surprise. It also led to the disappearance of the bipolar political and ideological structures that stabilised international relations throughout the 20th century, paving the way for the triumph of neoliberalism. This latter was the only game in town for some time, much as the “unipolar moment” had been. Some more idealistic researchers even started to talk about the “end of history,” meaning the end of the historic creativity of man and nations. In this regard, I can’t help but refer to the interpretation of the “end of history” by the Most Rev Rowan Williams in his book Dostoevsky: Language, Faith, and Fiction (Making of the Christian Imagination). The euphoria in international relations was short-lived, because of the experience of the first decade of this century, and, then, the global financial and economic crisis. This suggests that talk of the “end of history” usually heralds serious upheavals.
Neoliberalism prompted a number of profound shifts in social development, largely endorsing principles such as political correctness, and the dictatorship of the minority. The “permissiveness” inherent in this trend led to some traditional values shared by an often acquiescent majority being squeezed out of public discourse. It’s worth noting that distinctive features of this particular “take” on liberalism included zero tolerance of dissent and radical approaches to imposing this view, often with the government’s active support. One can’t help but recall how nihilism, as it’s materialism taken to its absurd conclusion locks human nature within a consumerist framework. George Orwell gave a convincing description of where this kind of social engineering can potentially lead.
I’d like to quote President Vladimir Putin’s address to the RF Federal Assembly. He said, “Attempts by the government to encroach on people’s beliefs and views are a manifestation of totalitarianism” and “law can’t instil morality“. Nevertheless, this is exactly what’s happening now, even though those involved formally deny it. As a result, the erosion of the cultural and moral social environment began with the replacement of its fundamental concepts. Moreover, all this is happening at a time when the role of religion has been on the rise world-wide, including in Islamic countries. At the heart of the issue lies a search for a common denominator between cultures and civilisations. This is essential for better mutual understanding in the modern world. As Madeleine Albright wrote in her book The Mighty and the Almighty (2006), all “should equally refer to such transcendental issues like history, identity, and faith”. Especially, this is so as “the three monotheistic religions provide a rich tradition of overlapping principles, ethics, and beliefs”. I believe that if we perceive society as a purely socio-mechanistic construct, if we ignore its more subtle moral and spiritual nature, it can have fatal consequences for that very society’s life, and, indeed, its future.
2 April 2013
Aleksandr Yakovenko
RIA-Novosti
http://en.ria.ru/alexander_yakovenko_blog/20130402/180394557/Ambassadors-Notebook-The-Role-of-Traditional-Values-in.html
Editor’s Note:
Many Americans, in particular, are “thrown” by the fact that Russians use English differently than Americans do. For Russians, “liberal” retains its original meaning… “the absence of state controls on private affairs”. That’s to say, the Free Market Nihilism of Anglosphere “conservatives”. The US Republican Party, the Canadian and British Conservative Parties, and the Australian Liberal Party all share this adoration of the Free Market and the concomitant worship of wealth and greed.
“Liberal” in Russia (and on the Continent, as well) does NOT mean “leftist” or “social democratic”. It means a soulless and corrosive nihilistic scrapping of all constructive government regulation, and the trashing of the rights of the non-wealthy. The political parties mentioned above DO believe in the “dictatorship of the minority”… they bow down before oligarchs, gun nutters, religious kooks, economic tinkerers, stock market manipulators, and media moguls. If “law can’t instil morality” (President Putin is right, here), then, we shouldn’t be waving placards in anti-abortion marches; we should be helping unwed mothers, seeing to it that larger families have the wherewithal to raise their kids (including help from the state, of course), and opposing oligarch-inspired cuts to social benefits and wages.
When viewed sanely, with a proper viewpoint, things aren’t quite what Fox News, Pat BuKKKanan, and Rod Dreher propagate. Anyone who opposes sane government regulation and intervention is a godless nihilist… never forget that (the worst of the lot are the Evangelical poseurs, with their smarmy pseudo-religion). Also, remember that “libertarian” is nothing but a euphemism for “wilful, spoilt childishness”. We have a job to do…
BMD
Voices from Russia 
The Role of Traditional Values in Contemporary Society
Tags: Classical Liberalism, Family, family life, Free market, George Orwell, laissez faire capitalism, Liberal, liberal economic policies, Liberalism, Libertarian, Libertarianism, moral, moral stance, morality, morals, Neoliberal, Neoliberalism, Nihilism, political commentary, politics, Russia, Russian, Russian culture, Soviet Union, Traditional values, United States, USA, USSR, Vladimir Putin
Families, then (Tsar Aleksandr Aleksandrovich loved his wife and kids, never cheated on her, routinely commuted virtually all death sentences to life imprisonment, and hid a bottle of brandy in his boot… what’s not to like?)…
******
families, now…
______________________________
Recently, the role of moral values in society has taken centre-stage in public and political discourse. Increasingly, their status as “universal” is under question, and core fundamental concepts receive new, sometimes contradictory interpretations. We must draw a clear distinction between those indisputable values that guided mankind for centuries over its journey of self-development, and the ultraliberal {“liberal” in the European sense, that is, Anglosphere “conservatism”: editor} trends that flourished in the early 21st century.
The collapse of the USSR and the socialist bloc in the late 1980s took Western academe by surprise. It also led to the disappearance of the bipolar political and ideological structures that stabilised international relations throughout the 20th century, paving the way for the triumph of neoliberalism. This latter was the only game in town for some time, much as the “unipolar moment” had been. Some more idealistic researchers even started to talk about the “end of history,” meaning the end of the historic creativity of man and nations. In this regard, I can’t help but refer to the interpretation of the “end of history” by the Most Rev Rowan Williams in his book Dostoevsky: Language, Faith, and Fiction (Making of the Christian Imagination). The euphoria in international relations was short-lived, because of the experience of the first decade of this century, and, then, the global financial and economic crisis. This suggests that talk of the “end of history” usually heralds serious upheavals.
Neoliberalism prompted a number of profound shifts in social development, largely endorsing principles such as political correctness, and the dictatorship of the minority. The “permissiveness” inherent in this trend led to some traditional values shared by an often acquiescent majority being squeezed out of public discourse. It’s worth noting that distinctive features of this particular “take” on liberalism included zero tolerance of dissent and radical approaches to imposing this view, often with the government’s active support. One can’t help but recall how nihilism, as it’s materialism taken to its absurd conclusion locks human nature within a consumerist framework. George Orwell gave a convincing description of where this kind of social engineering can potentially lead.
I’d like to quote President Vladimir Putin’s address to the RF Federal Assembly. He said, “Attempts by the government to encroach on people’s beliefs and views are a manifestation of totalitarianism” and “law can’t instil morality“. Nevertheless, this is exactly what’s happening now, even though those involved formally deny it. As a result, the erosion of the cultural and moral social environment began with the replacement of its fundamental concepts. Moreover, all this is happening at a time when the role of religion has been on the rise world-wide, including in Islamic countries. At the heart of the issue lies a search for a common denominator between cultures and civilisations. This is essential for better mutual understanding in the modern world. As Madeleine Albright wrote in her book The Mighty and the Almighty (2006), all “should equally refer to such transcendental issues like history, identity, and faith”. Especially, this is so as “the three monotheistic religions provide a rich tradition of overlapping principles, ethics, and beliefs”. I believe that if we perceive society as a purely socio-mechanistic construct, if we ignore its more subtle moral and spiritual nature, it can have fatal consequences for that very society’s life, and, indeed, its future.
2 April 2013
Aleksandr Yakovenko
RIA-Novosti
http://en.ria.ru/alexander_yakovenko_blog/20130402/180394557/Ambassadors-Notebook-The-Role-of-Traditional-Values-in.html
Editor’s Note:
Many Americans, in particular, are “thrown” by the fact that Russians use English differently than Americans do. For Russians, “liberal” retains its original meaning… “the absence of state controls on private affairs”. That’s to say, the Free Market Nihilism of Anglosphere “conservatives”. The US Republican Party, the Canadian and British Conservative Parties, and the Australian Liberal Party all share this adoration of the Free Market and the concomitant worship of wealth and greed.
“Liberal” in Russia (and on the Continent, as well) does NOT mean “leftist” or “social democratic”. It means a soulless and corrosive nihilistic scrapping of all constructive government regulation, and the trashing of the rights of the non-wealthy. The political parties mentioned above DO believe in the “dictatorship of the minority”… they bow down before oligarchs, gun nutters, religious kooks, economic tinkerers, stock market manipulators, and media moguls. If “law can’t instil morality” (President Putin is right, here), then, we shouldn’t be waving placards in anti-abortion marches; we should be helping unwed mothers, seeing to it that larger families have the wherewithal to raise their kids (including help from the state, of course), and opposing oligarch-inspired cuts to social benefits and wages.
When viewed sanely, with a proper viewpoint, things aren’t quite what Fox News, Pat BuKKKanan, and Rod Dreher propagate. Anyone who opposes sane government regulation and intervention is a godless nihilist… never forget that (the worst of the lot are the Evangelical poseurs, with their smarmy pseudo-religion). Also, remember that “libertarian” is nothing but a euphemism for “wilful, spoilt childishness”. We have a job to do…
BMD