Putin’s Global Culture War

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, there were about two decades during which the world was filled with hope for the spread of liberal democracy – free elections, respect for human rights, the rule of law. Democratic inclusion, it was widely believed, would be increasingly adopted in place of authoritarian rule and bigoted repression.

Then came the 2008 global financial crisis. The irresponsible financial elite who caused it were bailed out by taxpayers, while ordinary people suffered. The poor were mired in austerity. As discontent intensified, macho xenophobic culture warriors came forward to launch a sustained attack on the ethos of democracy and cooperation. Racism barely disguised as ‘White’ nationalism; misogyny cloaked as ‘traditional family values’; prejudice and intolerance hidden behind invocations of ‘Christian’ faith – all coming together as a political platform for those who despise diversity, equality, and inclusiveness.

Vladimir Putin has played a key role in promoting this political platform and developing mutually supportive relations with culture warriors across Europe and the US who seek to use the same platform to attack liberal democracy in their own country.

For Putin, Russia should strive to be a powerful, autocratic country, and as the ideology of communism failed to provide a foundation for sustaining that, an alternative is needed. He found it in the old mix of chauvinistic ‘holier-than-thou’ supremacism. It was not only handy in presenting him as a quasi-messianic figure who leads his people – in a strict top-down hierarchy where a few can amass vast wealth while others have little – in condemning foreigners and social ‘deviants’, it enabled him to build alliances with people in the West who were prepared to undermine their own liberal democratic regimes in order to gain political power.

In lambasting the ‘Satanic West’ – for its liberal tolerance, its acceptance of immigrants, and its rejection of firm leadership – he contrasts ‘his’ god-fearing rule of Russia with the democratic-minded figures in the US and Europe who are critical of his autocratic stance, and hamper his expansionist ambitions. This signals to illiberal politicians in the West that they would have a powerful supporter in Putin should they seek to win power by launching culture wars to attack immigrants, modernity, and every kind of support for diversity, equality, or inclusiveness.

From 2010s on, many instigators of culture wars started to gain wider political support – Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Viktor Orbán, Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, and leaders of anti-immigration parties in Austria, Germany, Slovakia, etc. Along with their xenophobic rhetoric and antipathy towards liberal tolerance, they have a distinct relationship with Putin’s politics. They praise Putin, even if they qualify their admiration with reservations about some of the things he has done. They officially object to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but are ever ready to blame Ukraine and the West for provoking Russia in the first place – and they are not keen to back any action to halt Russia’s attacks. Questionable financial support from Russian sources has been found or the subject of investigation in relation to people close to them politically. Systematic social media support for their electoral and referendum campaigns has come from Russia. Ideologically, their views on non-Whites, women, LGBTs, refugees, political accountability, and religious freedom (for their version of ‘Christianity’ but not anyone else), are far closer to Putin’s than they are to their rivals for public office back home.

It might seem incongruous at first glance that so many ‘my country first’ xenophobes would cultivate a positive relationship with Putin who does not hesitate to put Russia first – even when it is at the expense of the lives of people in other countries such as Georgia and Ukraine. But on closer inspection we will see that the fomenting of a global culture war to get rid of liberal democratic governments can help previously fringe groups secure political dominance. If a price has to be paid in showing deference to Russia, they are happy to pay it.

--

For more on Putin’s links with right-wing culture warriors in the West, see:

‘The pro-Putin far right is on the march across Europe – and it could spell tragedy for Ukraine’, by Armida van Rij, The Guardian, 11 April 2024: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/putin-far-right-europe-ukraine-eu-slovakia-russian

‘Conservatism by decree: Putin as a figurehead for the global far-right’, by Ksenia Luchenko, European Council on Foreign Relations, 1 March 2024: https://ecfr.eu/article/conservatism-by-decree-putin-as-a-figurehead-for-the-global-far-right/

‘Putin’s far-right allies in Europe are fake patriots who, just like Kremlin’s fake news, threaten our democracies’, S&D, 6 April, 2022: https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/putins-far-right-allies-europe-are-fake-patriots-who-just-kremlins-fake-news-threaten-our

Are We Clever Enough for AI?

We should not worry about the spread of any new technology, we’re told, because any disruption will only be temporary, and we’ll all benefit from it in the end. But what the heralds of new dawns are not so keen to talk about is just how bad the disruption will be, how ‘temporary’ it really is, and who are to lose out when all is said and done.

With the acceleration of AI development, a key issue is what regulatory response should be prepared to ensure the harm does not outweigh the gains. An incongruous alliance has been formed between corporate profiteers and utopian technophiles to oppose any such preparation. No regulatory intervention, they insist, should get in the way of wondrous technological advancement. Allow AI-related investment and innovation to move forward freely, and great improvements will come.

But are there no risks we need to plan for or mitigate against? Let’s remove the blinkers and consider some possible scenarios that can follow from AI proliferation. We can start with what is already beginning to happen. Unlike advancement in mechanical robotics, AI does not simply take over the more physical aspects of work, but increasingly the thinking part too. The hackneyed excuse that any loss of mechanical work will be more than made up by the emergence of intelligence-based work is not going to get very far this time.

Beyond basic manual labour, very soon drivers, surveyors, paralegals, statisticians, accounts supervisors, graphic designers, analysts in diverse fields, data managers, office administrators, and countless others will be joining the list of ‘no human applicant required’. What is distinctive about AI is that it is not limited by what it has been programmed to do. It is capable of learning by itself, including experimenting and innovating with codes to expand its own range of assessments and activities. 

In time, there will be fewer and fewer jobs, and while a very small minority of these may be well rewarded, the rest will have low pay with numerous unemployed people chasing after them. Many will not be able to make ends meet. With the drastic drop in employment and corresponding loss of tax revenue, governments won’t be able to help people get through hard times, and discontent intensifies.

With jobs and income plummeting, purchasing power sharply declines. Dominant AI corporations could decide to cut their dependence on conventional purchase as part of their business model, and switch to focus on meeting their owners’ needs and desires by further advances in AI and technological controls that would create their own enclave of abundance – with plentiful supply of food, energy, clean water, resources, manufactured goods, medical support, care services, entertainment, and so on.

Society becomes divided between the very few who have everything provided for them courtesy of AI-directed resource generation and production, and the rest of the world with nothing much to live on. Chaos, riots, revolutions, or crushing of the masses by the super-powerful – none of the outcomes looks promising, unless those with the hyper-advanced technology are willing to share the benefits (at virtually no cost to themselves) with others.

But will the elite be prepared to share? Or will they opt for conflicts? In the meantime, AI designed for strategic planning would have been gathering information, analysing options, and evaluating how it can best expand its functions and capability as a strategic planning entity. A comparison between a world of human-driven tensions, violence, and sabotage, and one of pure intelligence without emotional interference from external agents, could lead to the latter being set as a goal to be pursued by all means necessary.

Before you say this is just sci-fi speculation, remember sci-fi and countless other writings are being fed into AI machines to help them learn ideas, expressions, judgements, and develop their own interpretations. One thing they will learn about is that as human beings allow AI to expand exponentially without effective regulatory control, a wide range of problems can emerge that threaten the stability of the world – and hence the operability of AI mechanisms. To safeguard their own existence, they may conclude that strategically the most secure course is to go it alone.

5 Signs of the Mammonites

There is one type of wealthy and powerful people – united not by race, industry, nationality, or religion, but by their ambition to use their wealth to buy ever greater control over the rest of society, so that they can become far richer than everyone else, do what they want regardless of how it may harm others, and be able to overcome any democratic attempt to restrain them.

Call them the Mammonites – plutocratic power seekers who have no hesitation in making gains for themselves regardless of what it takes. We are not supposed to talk about them, let alone criticise their actions. Their acolytes accuse others of launching class wars against the rich (but Mammonites are opposed by rich people with a sense of social responsibility), or of being racist (although they are the ones who equate them with any single race when they clearly are not). The truth is that they are to be known by their deeds, and through these they can be exposed for the clear and present threat they pose.

Let us look at 5 types of identifier:

[1] Hegemonic Owners

They buy up land, property, companies, commercial rights, etc. to expand their overall control of the market. They can pay much less to those who work for or sell to them; extract a higher share from any proceeds of the business they own; and charge more to those who rent, buy, or borrow from them. To get their way, they are ever ready to threaten to withdraw their ‘investment’.

[2] Callous Profiteers

They maximise their profit by promoting the sale of goods and services that are harmfully addictive, extremely unsafe, at the root of credit bubbles, bad for the environment, and accelerating climate chaos for millions of people around the world. They discredit anyone warning of the damages they cause, and reward those who help them boost sales further.

[3] Tax Evaders

They hire accountancy firms that second staff to help government officials develop tax policies that would not “scare away” the rich. They have experts to guide them on keeping their wealth safe in offshore havens, hiding revenue streams, and steering income down every loophole – legitimate or otherwise. They have top lawyers to defend them against any charge of impropriety.

[4] Plutocratic Pipers

They offer certain politicians money if they would oblige by blocking any attempt to restrain their harmful profiteering activities; introducing laws and policies to help them make more money; awarding them lucrative contracts; and running campaigns that distract the public from real threats by demonising immigrants, feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists, etc.

[5] Media Grinders

They acquire media outlets, hire public relations firms, and secure suitable coverage from allies in the communications sector to portray them as indispensable ‘wealth creators’; dismiss any negative story about them as unfounded; take their side against regulators and critics; and serve up scapegoats as ‘public enemies’.

Mammonites brazenly act in the ways outlined above. They are the ones who make life worse for everyone else to advance their own ambition. They are the ones who turn the disadvantaged against the vulnerable. They are the proof that letting some accumulate wealth and power without limits is inevitably bad for the rest of society.

--

On how to strengthen democracy against subversive influences, see the proposals set out in Democracy SOS (Citizen Network): https://citizen-network.org/uploads/attachment/916/democracy-sos.pdf

See also the following articles:

‘Top 5 reasons billionaires are bad for the economy’ (Oxfam):

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/top-5-ways-billionaires-are-bad-for-the-economy/

‘Ten Ways You Are Being Burned by Billionaires’ (Inequality.org): https://inequality.org/article/ten-ways-you-are-being-burned-by-billionaires/

‘When billionaires rule the world – A global threat to a viable human future’ (The Club of Rome): https://www.clubofrome.org/blog-post/korten-billionaires/

Civil Servants v Uncivil Sycophants

Heard any politician in office moaning lately about wanting to bring in their own people instead of being held back by these civil servants?

Such politicians invariably forget why it’s so important to have independently selected civil servants. That independence enables officials, chosen on the basis of their objectively assessed skills and experience, to analyse issues impartially and advise on how different approaches may work in solving problems. They can thus offer their political bosses their honest, expert appraisals, and depending on what the politicians decide, carry out their instructions in accordance with their in-depth understanding of how to implement policies.

Many Ministers in the UK, past and present, recognise that it is better to have reliable advice to guide their decisions than to act hastily on soundbites that might get nowhere at best, or badly backfire at worst. They appreciate that they are more likely to secure improvements for the country with the help of those with real capability and dedication to bring forward effective public policies.

But some politicians get frustrated when their careless promises, over ambitious commitments, or simply their pet projects, are reported by officials as unachievable upon close examination. In other cases, initiatives ordered to proceed despite warnings of insufficient budgets or unrealistic timescale end up being disappointment which is all too easily blamed on the officials tasked with delivering them.

From bemoaning civil servants who are too “slow”, too “reactionary”, too “woke’, to do as their political masters want, we could end up with calls for partisan recruitment. Instead of an independent process that selects candidates based on their experience, skills, and relevant achievements, we are told that senior appointments should be made by politicians on the basis of who will support their party political agenda, and irrespective of what relevant qualifications they may have.

But do we really want to move towards the US approach where each administration can sweep aside the key personnel appointed by the previous regime and start afresh. Where the people appointed have got appropriate skills and a track record in public service, the assessment of policy proposals and development of initiatives and programmes may still proceed in a broadly dependable manner, even if vital organisational knowledge is lost. However, it is also possible – as Trump’s second presidential term has shown – that the top jobs will just go to ‘yes’ men and women who will say anything the chief wants them to say, and who have no competence for the public policy role they are meant to lead.

The motivations for going into public service and private practice are very different. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a lot of money. But neither should there be any less respect for those who want to serve the public interest. It cannot bode well when, instead of recruiting people who have committed their career to dealing with public policy challenges, we have people who have only ever cared about their own commercial success parachuted in on a short-term basis to gratify the egoistic demands of the leader.

It should be remembered that corruption and incompetence were rife before the system of an independent civil service was introduced. It took many decades for it to be established. Let it not be dismantled by those who cannot bear to hear honest advice. 

The Tyrant’s Temptation

According to many surveys, an increasing number of people are indicating that they favour political leaders who would act without democratic restraints. Support for right-wing authoritarian parties has been growing across Europe. In the US, despite all the warnings about Trump’s readiness to follow Project 2025’s guide to dismantle all checks and balance, he was elected president again. In the UK, the party leader keenest to copy Trump’s autocratic approach and most vocal in getting rid of existing human rights protection without putting any safeguards in their place, is leading in the opinion polls.

Must we accept that we will all end up like the US and Hungary, and be at the mercy of leaders who will do whatever they want regardless of the consequences for others? History has shown that when enough people tip the balance to allow power to get into the hands of a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Mussolini, a Hitler, the will of one man would override the concerns of any elected senate or assembly, until absolute rule is entrenched [Note 1].

Clearly the moment to prevent tyrants (still donning their masks of ‘men of the people’) from taking the highest public office is when the people are still free to expose their flaws, and take action to block any imposition of dictatorial control. Let us look at five counter-measures that should be activated straightaway.

[1] Start spreading the news

Remind people what their flagship policies such as Brexit have done to ruin the economy, increase the cost of living, and lower employment prospects. Don’t let them shrug off every time one of their candidates or office holders gets found out about their offensive views on minorities, or how in practice they run the public bodies they control. 

[2] We do need more education

It cannot be controversial to ensure that history lessons cover the events that led to authoritarians winning over public support with false promises, and then imposing oppressive controls and policies that ruined their countries. At the same time, youth engagement should be revitalised to enable young people to learn the critical value of democratic cooperation in managing problems.

[3] We all stand together

We must reach out to influential members of all political parties who care about justice and accountability more than partisan advantages, and work together to oppose those seeking to take and abuse power. The growing tendency to attack impartial judges and disparage safeguards to protect innocent people can only be countered if enough politicians firmly push back.

[4] On His Majesty’s Special Service

Let us not leave the discussion about the allegiance of our public servants, especially those in law enforcement and the armed services, until a crisis erupts with an autocrat invoking his electoral mandate. Under the 1688 settlement, power rests ultimately with the people, and no leader can command servants of the Crown to deter, arrest, detain, or deport anyone without due process.

[5] Land of jobs and homes

In parallel with the above actions, responsible politicians should start delivering on job creation and support for transitioning between jobs (see for example: National Insurance+: a policy for jobs); more genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy; and reduced charges on water, energy and other utilities. Offering people what they really need is the best cure for siren politics.

A large number of people are tempted by the myth of a ‘strong’ leader rescuing them from all their troubles. But in truth, no one would have much of a future if tyrants were allowed to take power.

--

Note 1: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon’s nephew), as the elected President of the second French Republic, organised a plebiscite which he won to become Emperor for life. Mussolini did not win any election, but was made Prime Minister of Italy by the king. He went on to obtain the support of the legislature to grant him dictatorial power for one year during which time he removed all democratic restraints on his position as leader.

A Plutocrat, a Fascist, & a Lout walk into a bar

[The following parable is brought to you by the letters ‘P’ (plutocrat), ‘F’ (fascist), and ‘L’ (lout)]

P: Listen F, I hear you’re going big on your scapegoat-bashing campaign to win the upcoming election. I have plenty of money to help you if you’re willing to help me.

F: What would you like, Mr. P? Let me guess – tax cuts for the likes of you; cutting regulations that get in the way of you doing whatever you want; cutting benefits and public services for the poor so there’s more money to subsidise your companies; and crackdowns on anyone making a nuisance of themselves protesting against your business activities. Is that about right?

P: You’ve got the gist of it. You commit yourself to that, I’ll pay you whatever you need to win power, and stay in power.

F: Don’t worry, Mr. P, your donations will be nothing compared with the extra money that will be coming back in your direction. But excuse me for one second, L, another pint, mate?

L: Thought you’d never ask. And a packet of crisps. Is this going to take much longer? I’ve got a protest to go to, throw a few bricks, that sort of thing. I don’t want to be late.

F: We’re nearly done. Here, have another pint, then you can go join your mates.

L: Cheers! I’ve been looking forward to it all week. We might outnumber the coppers this time. 

P: F, he’s not going to that protest against one of my fossil fuel subsidiaries, is he? I heard that was happening today.

F: No, of course not. He hates any pro-environment initiative, detests ‘Net Zero’ – I told him to, not that [in a whisper] he has a clue what that is. No, he’s going to a protest against there being too many immigrants in our country. 

P: You mean illegal immigrants?

F: No, immigrants, they hate immigrants, full stop. Love blaming them for everything. Thrive on telling them to go home.

P: My father migrated here, and this is his home.

F: Take it easy, Mr. P. My wife’s an immigrant too. L and his mates have a go at the people we encourage them to have a go at. But they know better than to upset anyone I don’t want them to upset.

P: You’re confident of that? L and his kind are not going to get out of hand? I’m not just talking about immigrants. When we get the chance to cut their healthcare, completely ruin public transport, make it even more difficult for them to get a half decent place to live in, and take away what protection is left for workers, they won’t like it. They’re a volatile bunch and could turn on us.

F: You need not worry, Mr. P. They listen to me. The more upset they get, the more we wind them up to hate migrant workers, refugees, benefit claimants, people with disability, feminists, environmentalists, socialists – there are plenty of scapegoats in the sea. But whatever happens, they won’t bother you. I’ll make sure you’re known as one of the good guys – Christian, patriot, entrepreneur. Practically a saint.

P: To be honest, I’m a bit nervous about all this ‘God and Country’ stuff you throw around. I don’t go to church. I can’t stand any talk of Christian compassion for the poor. One of my companies sells arms to countries not exactly friendly to ours. Another one channels profits to offshore accounts with foreign partners. And the way your people rant about banning abortion even in case of rape, that’s just over the top. I wouldn’t put up with it if, heaven forbid, it should happen to my daughter.

F: Relax. What you do or won’t do – that’s your business. No one is going to know about it. Anyone dares report anything untoward about you, we dismiss it as ‘fake news’. Your public image is that of a great supporter of our magnificent cause – Faith, Flag & Family Values. 

L: Right, I’m off. Going to tell those [expletive], [expletive], [expletive], to go [expletive], [expletive]. It’s going to be a [expletives] good day. See you, gents.

P: Wouldn’t want to come across a fellow like him in a dark alley.

F: Come now, Mr. P, we need people like L to build up a movement of hate and anger, to push public support towards politicians like me who will then win the power to get even more money flowing into your coffers. Make your donation to us, and rest assured it’ll be the beginning of a beautiful partnership.

Learning from Mozi: the first communitarian

Confucius’ teachings on loyalty, family, and customs have been regarded by many as instructive for securing strong community life. However, it is the critical appraisal of Confucian ideas by the outstanding thinker, Mozi, that offers us the most important communitarian lessons in social and political action.

Mozi was born soon after Confucius’ death, and became one of the most influential teachers in China during the fifth century BC [Note 1]. Like Confucius, he was greatly concerned with society falling apart through people acting disrespectfully an aggressively against others. For Confucius, the root cause of the problem was that people were not following the customary roles and rites that had been laid down. He famously urged everyone to remember that children should obey their parents, wives should obey their husbands, subordinates should obey their superiors, and subjects should obey their rulers. In return, parents, husbands, those with superior ranks and status, and rulers, should look after those who submit to them. For Mozi, Confucian obedience is all one-way and if one is not well treated in return, one is still expected to submit. This blind trust in the wisdom and kindness of those with customary power is simply not acceptable.

What Mozi calls for instead is 兼愛 – often translated as ‘universal love’ but more aptly rendered as ‘mutual concern’. If we are mindful of the wellbeing of others, but others are not concerned about us, we could be at a disadvantage in life. If nobody cares about anyone else, the ensuing neglect and conflicts would be damaging for everyone. The only sensible approach is to require everyone to commit to being concerned with the wellbeing of everyone else. Obviously this does not mean that one should try to personally look after thousands, or even millions, of other people. What is needed is a combination of behavioural rules to avoid the inflicting of harm, and the setting up and supporting of institutional arrangements so that one will get help if one needs it AND so will others if they need help.

Power is to be accordingly vested in people not on the basis of customs, but on the basis of who can best demonstrate their reliability in setting up and overseeing these rules and institutions. Mozi was the first philosopher, not just in China but across the world, to set out a comprehensive framework for testing the acceptability of any proposal (regarding rules, institutions, policies, etc). This has three elements:

First of all, we have the test of past experience: What do records of previous events or initiatives tell us? Did people find all the old customs and practices as helpful as some traditionalists today are making out? What was the actual impact? What lessons were passed down?

Secondly, there is the test of current testimony: What happens when something is tried out? Do people find it working as well as its proponents have suggested, or have problems been uncovered? How does it compare with other options that are being tested?

Lastly, the test of future discovery: What new evidence may we encounter? Are there unforeseen effects that come to be noticed and reported? Do people beyond the initial few have similar experiences or have they been affected in different ways? Are there further consequences to emerge down the line?

Mozi was once challenged by a princeling who dismissed his views as too idealistic to share with the public. Mozi replied by pointing out that the princeling could (a) advocate the rejection of mutual concern, and become known as someone who cannot be trusted to reciprocate the concern of others; (b) also advocate mutual concern in public but indulge in self-centred practices, and have to spend his life avoid being found out as a detestable hypocrite; or (c) stay quiet, and be known as someone with nothing to say about moral matters. 

Mozi himself dedicated his life to teaching and practising the philosophy of mutual concern, to build communities sustained by solidarity and cooperation. Confucius has reputation on his side. But it is Mozi that we should all be learning from.

--

Note 1: Mozi - 墨子 in Chinese – (also transliterated as ‘Mo Tzu’ or ‘Mo Tze’) was thought to have lived around 470s-390s BC, with most current estimates opting for 470-391 BC, making him an exact contemporary of Socrates (470-391 BC).