Author Archives: Liam Gillis

Russia’s Disastrous Shock Therapy

Posted on by
5

Russians are stereotypicaly depressed, but the phenomenon that Masha Gessen documents on Dying Russians takes that to a whole new, and very morbid, level. At the heart of socialism is the idea that the purpose of the individual is to serve the greater whole, as opposed to capitalism, where self-interest motivates the individual. The regime change that took place in Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union might have changed the politics and economics of the country, but it happened so quickly that the culture had no time at all to adapt. Not only was this individualistic economic system suddenly thrust upon the Russian people, but also the volatility and inequality that came with it. One benefit of socialism is that the masses are all very economically equal. Movie stars aren’t driving Lamborghini’s past the destitute homeless in the Soviet Union, within worker communities, everyone is either suffering or prospering together, making it easier to share suffering. But the economic volatility of Shock Therapy allowed opportunistic Russians to get ahead and leave many behind, something that the Russian people were not ready to experience. Trying to take the Soviet Union and transform it into a new country with new values alienated many, especially older individuals who had their planned-out lives yanked out from under them and left to fend for themselves. Trying to make Russia something it was the very opposite of is exactly how we have ended up with Putin and his party now exerting near-authoritarian control of the country. Rather than let them evolve their country to accommodate capitalism and democracy, Shock Therapy proved to stoke resentment and nostalgia for times long past.

Back in My Day…

Posted on by
5

Balgat’s swift modernization is exactly what most people would point to when they think of “progress.” This leaves behind, however, the culture and traditions that, for The Chief, are essential to Balgati culture. Modernization offers the people of Balgat the clocks, retail stores, and elections all give the people of Balgat more access to more products, opportunities, and even ways to govern. But it doesn’t include the disclaimer that would read, “replaces distinct culture of small village and replaces with uniform culture of Ankara suburbs.” Modernization always wins the battle with stagnation. People are driven to shiny new things and measuring personal improvement by materially having more “stuff” one day than they did in the past. But because access to this stuff requires reforming culture to accommodate it, places like Balgat end up loosing their uniqueness. Should the chief so quietly surrender his Balgat to the onslaught of modernization though?  There are always people like the chief, who prize their traditions, he recognizes that his values are not going to be preserved in future generations, and quietly witnesses Balgat’s evolution. Many do not share this resignation, and when people of older generations are faced with the cultural implications of modernizing, there is often an effort to keep things the way they are. While it slows the pace of change, it is not entirely merit-less, as there should always be some effort to preserving the eccentricities of different cultures. Progress is excellent, and it oftentimes improves opportunities and quality of life, but it should always be approached cautiously so that what makes a town distinct is not entirely removed, but changed to fit in to the new world.

Who Rules Who in Colonial Burma?

Posted on by
13

Ironically, conquering and subjugating a nation goes both ways within George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant. Orwell’s complicated relationship with the natives persistently feel as though, while he is supposedly a member of the ruling class, he is not able to execute his authority on his own will. Rather, his actions end up being heavily influenced by the inferior masses around him, in practice, he really becomes their instrument, rather than an instrument of the nation he claims to serve. Shooting the elephant, an intimate decision that should be made at Orwell’s discretion, ends up being entirely made by the will of the masses. His experience with the elephant is a parallel to the United Kingdom’s greater struggle to maintain dominance of it’s larger empire. As nations develop under the empire, they become harder and harder to control, and eventually, it becomes the British who are controlled by their subjects. Once the empire is no longer serving the English, but is instead making decisions based on the will of native peoples from around the world, its benefits disappear, and it eventually disintegrates as a result. Orwell’s elephant incident, and the experiences of colonial empires around the world, exemplify the complications of political authority. All governments need the respect of their subjects to function properly, without it, the regime risks widespread disobedience or revolution, neither of which are profitable for anyone involved. This game of who rules who is also at play in democracy, as elected officials will never make decisions that will alienate too many voters. Authority is not simply given to those in power, there is much more than a single person’s will at work whenever a “powerful” individual makes a decision.

Little Democracy, Same Game

Posted on by
8

The Chinese classroom seen in Please Vote for Me perfectly encapsulates the many problems that the democratic process has. One would assume that a class election would be free of the many complexities found in an election for office in a large democracy, but instead, external influences and underhanded tactics immediately seize control and direct the vote. Cheng Cheng cunningly plants allies to slander Xiaofei before the race has even begun, and effectively gets the entire class to rebuke her without hearing a word she has to say. He also makes patronage an important part of his allure, promising positions in his future “administration” to those who would support him. But fittingly, Cheng Cheng’s Jacksonian politics eventually backfired, as even in his small classroom, he destroyed his own integrity. His lack of consistency, mostly due to contradictory promises that backfired and destroyed their value and his supporters, driving them away.  Fittingly, the deciding factor in the end was money. Luo Fei can woo his class with an expensive trip on the monorail, completely irrelevant to running a classroom but appealing nonetheless to an elementary school classroom. His parents, as well as the parents of Cheng Cheng and Xiaofei, all played an important roll as campaign advisors and sponsors. Luo Fei’s parents used him as a puppet, acting through him to further their own desire to see their son win the office. In the end, the fact that even a small, innocent democracy like the one found within this classroom is subject to manipulation shows the imperfections of this solution to governance.

Democracy: Easier Said than Done

Posted on by
2

Fareed Zakaria’s observation of the proliferation of illiberal democracies is concerning. The push for democracy by the Western world on developing nations during the latter half of the twentieth century failed in many cases because the requisite political culture for democracy was not in place. Fareed notes that liberal values existed under the 19th century monarchies a century before the establishment of full democratic governance, is this is crucial to their success in the Western world. Forcing underdeveloped nations with different cultural values to follow a system they aren’t ready for is a recipe for disaster.
How, then, is democracy supposed to spread if not through shock therapy? The approach taken by certain Eastern Asian countries is much more sensical. Looking at Singapore, a country that has long been ruled by a dictatorship, liberal values slowly but surely have been developing under the regime, and with the recent death of Lee Kuan Yew, dictator of Singapore since the end of World War II, the strict one-party control of the country is loosening, allowing for outsider parties to participate for the first time. Singapore has remained exceptionally stable throughout this development, and the gradual changes that have been made do not result in military coups or armed revolts. Democracy should only be instituted if the people within a country truly desire that form of governance, and if this is the case, a slow democratization will occur. Otherwise, more authoritarian systems should not be detested if they succeed in allowing for their citizens a good quality of life and do not heavily infringe on personal freedoms, they should only be forcibly disrupted when a regime systematically perpetrates significant abuses of human rights.

Grading Systems, a Necessary Evil

Posted on by
Reply

I would like to focus on the necessity of a grading system in education. While Gatto seems to feel as though grading is just a means for society to cultivate obedience and sort people into categories, I look at it as a necessary evil rather than something that should be eliminated. It certainly isn’t perfect, but without incentive, especially in a world filled with mindless distraction, I feel as though there would not be a meaningful desire for most people to educate themselves. Without material incentive, people tend to do the minimum, the economy of the former Soviet Union speaks well to this. While the education system may not be making students into “their best selves,” everything learned in K-12 education isn’t entirely worthless. And grading systems, when they become more important in middle and high school, do play on the self-interested part of human nature to “fool” students into learning things in some capacity, even if it’s just for the grade. It’s hard to convince children that learning is important, and I think the grading system is more successful at encouraging education if the alternative is anarchy. Of course, there’s a middle ground somewhere, grading systems should be encouraging intellectual accomplishment rather than blind obedience to monotonous daily tasks which the grading systems of today all too often reward in excess. We just need to find it.