Death of Zoya Krakhmalnikova, Russian Christian writer jailed by Bolsheviks
Steve Hayes
authorities
Michael Bourdeaux
The Guardian,
Tuesday May 13 2008
In the Brezhnev years of the old Soviet Union, an innocent
person actively engaged in work as a "democrat" might expect
to receive a sentence of five to 10 years' imprisonment. A
sentence of one year demonstrated to the Soviet public - and
the world - that not even the semblance of a crime could be
pinned on the victim. The second variant was the fate of
Zoya Krakhmalnikova, who has died aged 79.
When she was sentenced in 1983 for reviving a
pre-revolutionary Christian journal, Nadezhda (Hope), she
told the courtroom: "I wasn't 'guilty' of producing
Nadezhda - I was simply trying to re-establish what was
suppressed 60 years ago. Nadezhda was produced for all who
seek the word of God, so there's no crime in producing these
volumes. Thank God for everything!"
Krakhmalnikova was born in the Ukrainian city of Kharkov
(now Kharkiv), where, in 1936, she witnessed the arrest of
her father in one of Stalin's purges. After the the second
world war, despite her background, she was educated in the
Gorky Literary Institute in Moscow, where she graduated in
1954, and then did postgraduate work at the Institute of
World Literature. By the 1960s she was writing articles and
publishing them in prestigious literary journals. She
married another author, Feliks Svetov, and in 1967 became a
member of the Institute of Sociology in the Soviet Academy
of Sciences.
However, in 1971 she was baptised into the Russian Orthodox
church, leading to dismissal from her job and from the Union
of Writers, which meant being banned from publishing. But
Soviet anti-religious tactics misfired as she devoted her
talents to Christian writing, tackling the problem of the
religious renaissance in the Soviet Union and sending
articles abroad for publication.
But she wanted to produce something more systematic. In 1976
she began to compile a typewritten anthology, Nadezhda, to
which she gave the sub-title Christian Reading - and it was
just that. She was not a dissident writer who confronted the
authorities on their human-rights record or their
suppression of religious liberty. Krakhmalnikova openly
attached her name to this work, which she aimed at various
levels of readership, not just the intelligentsia. She was
particularly concerned to find sources and authors who could
write on the historical roots of the Orthodox church. She
went back to the church fathers and published sermons by
contemporary priests. However, when the journal tackled the
20th century, this inevitably included articles on the "new
martyrs", the victims of communist repression. Typescripts
reached the anti-Soviet publishing house, Posev, in West
Germany, which printed them for smuggling back to the USSR.
The knock on Krakhmalnikova's door came at 4am on August 4
1982, when she was at her dacha. A year in the notorious
Lefortovo prison followed, and her health declined. Ten
issues of the journal had been published and a few more
subsequently appeared anonymously. Accused of sending these
abroad and of publishing articles by the "dissident" priest,
Fr Dmitri Dudko, Krakhmalnikova pleaded not guilty at her
trial on April 1 1983. The Soviet news agency, Tass,
obviously trying to emphasise the "leniency" of the court,
publicised her sentence, but omitted that it was to be
followed by five years' exile. She was sent to a remote
settlement, Ust-Kan, adjacent to Mongolia.
She adapted to her circumstances quickly. She found a small
but light room, enjoyed the company of local people, could
receive food parcels and have monthly visits from her
husband and daughter. She had a Bible and a few icons to put
up in the traditional corner. However, there was no priest
and she was barred from visiting church.
Later her husband was arrested and sent into exile. As an
Orthodox activist, he was one of the last victims of the
communist repression of religion, being sentenced in January
1986, 10 months after Gorbachev's accession. The pair
refused to "repent" and petition for early release, but a
pardon followed in July 1987. Krakhmalnikova became an
active democrat, calling on leaders of the Orthodox church
to repent of its collaboration with the authorities (which
they never did).
Krakhmalnikova later published an autobiography, but she
never became a high-profile figure in Russia and was
virtually unknown in the west. However, she was influential
in her circle, being fearless, radiant in her faith and yet
personally modest. She opened the way for the new era of
Christian publishing in Russia which began 20 years ago.
· Zoya Alexandrovna Krakhmalnikova, Christian writer and
editor, born January 14 1929; died April 17 2008
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Dan
> Christian writer jailed for her beliefs by the Soviet
> authorities
<snip>
>Krakhmalnikova became an
> active democrat, calling on leaders of the Orthodox church
> to repent of its collaboration with the authorities (which
> they never did).
This may be why she is so little known--even to Orthodox Christians.
One more notch on Agent Drozdov's gun.
Catawumpus
> Michael Bourdeaux, The Guardian, Tuesday May 13 2008 ...
> Krakhmalnikova became an active democrat, calling on leaders of the
> Orthodox church to repent of its collaboration with the
> authorities (which they never did).
First things first, tho: has the Orthodox church _stopped_
collaborating with the authorities?
-- Catawumpus
nedurak
"Catawumpus" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-08E77...@news.verizon.net...
> Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
> First things first, tho: has the Orthodox church _stopped_
> collaborating with the authorities?
>
Typical American mind set. We know how everyone else in the world should run
their lives,i.e. their religion, their business, their government, etc. but
we somehow can't seem to do it right for ourselves.
++
Catawumpus wrote:
Catawumpus, first things first, before I have an anonymous discourse on
this. What are your own thoughts on the same. There are a lot of
layers of "collaboration"
>
>
John W Kennedy
For better or for worse, the Eastern Church has pretty much been in that
position for the last seventeen centuries.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton
Steve Hayes
Possibly. I first heard of her from an article she wrote in the journal of the
Keston Institute, of which the bosser up is, or was, Michael Bourdeaux, who
wrote the obit.
Here's an abstact:
Krakhmal'nikova, Zoya, 1992. Russophobia, antisemitism and
Christianity: some remarks on an anti-Russian idea, in
Religion, State and Society, Vol. 20(1). Page 7-28.
I.R. Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician, has written a book
called Russophobia, in which he puts forward antisemitic and
nationalist ideas as Christian. Ilya Glazunov, an artist who
exhibited in 1978, could be considered the father of this
idea - his painting of the prodigal son shows the son
returning, not to God, but to Russia, and depicts Satan with
what the then fashionable priest, Fr Dmitri Dudko, called an
'unRussian face'. These nationalist and antisemitic ideas,
however, are not Christian, but are contrary to the Orthodox
tradition. It is not by imagining enemies, but by returning
to its Orthodox roots, including the principle of loving
one's enemies, that Russia will be true to itself. It is
Shafarevic who displays the real Russophobia, by inciting
hatred.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Catawumpus
>>> Michael Bourdeaux, The Guardian, Tuesday May 13 2008 ...
>>> Krakhmalnikova became an active democrat, calling on leaders of the
>>> Orthodox church to repent of its collaboration with the
>>> authorities (which they never did).
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> First things first, tho: has the Orthodox church _stopped_
>> collaborating with the authorities?
++ <fri...@spambot.com>:
> Catawumpus, first things first, before I have an anonymous discourse on
> this. What are your own thoughts on the same. There are a lot of
> layers of "collaboration"
I'm thinking two main things. In the West, the Church has
a history of complicity with the authorities going back to
Constantine. In the East, it was in bed with Byzantium. There
are some nice exceptions (for instance the liberation
theology recently displeasing the Vatican), but that's been the
rule.
Scripturally speaking, the Church could base itself on Rom.
13:1-6 -- setting aside any questions about Biblical
consistency -- which announces "the powers that be are ordained
of God" and conversely damns anyone who resists them on
grounds fighting the ruling powers is a rebellion against God's
will.
But that doesn't leave room for picking and choosing. God
installs the rulers, Rom. 13 claims, and Christians are
required to follow them. Applied to Russian history that makes
the Tsars and the Bolsheviks both "God's ministers." Ditto
the gangster capitalists and ex-KGB apparatchiks running things
today.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>>> Michael Bourdeaux, The Guardian, Tuesday May 13 2008 ...
>>> Krakhmalnikova became an active democrat, calling on leaders of the
>>> Orthodox church to repent of its collaboration with the
>>> authorities (which they never did).
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> First things first, tho: has the Orthodox church _stopped_
>> collaborating with the authorities?
John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>:
> For better or for worse, the Eastern Church has pretty much been in that
> position for the last seventeen centuries.
That's my impression, too. Never heard much about Eastern
Orthodoxy leading the fight against the Czars -- either the
old ones or their modern successors -- though there may be some
honorable exceptions. Same thing in the West: Church and
Empire have been linked since antiquity, though Christians like
Kierkegaard protest violently.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>>> Michael Bourdeaux, The Guardian, Tuesday May 13 2008 ...
>>> Krakhmalnikova became an active democrat, calling on leaders of the
>>> Orthodox church to repent of its collaboration with the
>>> authorities (which they never> did).
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> First things first, tho: has the Orthodox church _stopped_
>> collaborating with the authorities?
veritas <comin...@yahoo.com>
> What "authorities" are you referring to?
I mean the reigning authorities. Sometimes they're called
the powers that be.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Typical American mind set. We know how everyone else in the world should run
> their lives,i.e. their religion, their business, their government, etc. but
> we somehow can't seem to do it right for ourselves.
Sorry to hear about your problems. I hope things start to
work out for you.
-- Catawumpus
++
Catawumpus wrote:
>a history of complicity with the authorities going back to
>Constantine. In the East, it was in bed with Byzantium. There
>are some nice exceptions (for instance the liberation
>theology recently displeasing the Vatican), but that's been the
>rule.
>
>
Sure, during theocratic times when there was a pretence of a Roman
emperor, there was some engagement of the emperor with the church,
chiefly ceremonial. The reigning emperor called church councils, but
the highest (or after Rome was excommunicated for heresy) or the local
Patriarch chaired and opened the meeting. Some emperors were considered
heretics. The appellation julian the Apostate is a prime example, and
the appellation could be even worse, ex. Copronymous (for that
particular Constantine having pissed in the baptismal font as an
infant), but the appellation was used only after he acted egregiously
against the Church.
The system of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's included such
things as paying taxes and meeting other legal obligations.
> Scripturally speaking, the Church could base itself on Rom.
>13:1-6 -- setting aside any questions about Biblical
>consistency -- which announces "the powers that be are ordained
>of God" and conversely damns anyone who resists them on
>grounds fighting the ruling powers is a rebellion against God's
>will.
>
>
We have thousands upon thousands, some in our recent century of
communism and fascism, Christian martyrs who chose the way of God
instead of the way of a non Orthodox ruler serving the cause of evil in
one respect or another.
> But that doesn't leave room for picking and choosing. God
>installs the rulers, Rom. 13 claims, and Christians are
>required to follow them. Applied to Russian history that makes
>the Tsars and the Bolsheviks both "God's ministers." Ditto
>the gangster capitalists and ex-KGB apparatchiks running things
>today.
>
>
Not at all and neither is your assertion supported by history.
>-- Catawumpus
++
Catawumpus wrote:
WEll, there's bad and then there is anti-Christian, i.e. evil. So, you
do see a fight against the Mongols, later a large effort against the
Ottomans and other Islamic invaders, but nothing large against serfdome
outside some intellectuals and writers.
Marko Amnell
I was not familiar with Zoya Krakhmalnikova, but I think it's
worth pointing out that Igor Shafarevich is a major
internationally respected mathematician and the founder
of the important Russian school of algebraic number theory.
I have two of his books on number theory. I was not familiar
with his political writings and the accusations of anti-semitism,
but here's quote from the wikipedia entry on him:
"Antisemitism allegations
Allegations of antisemitism started after Shafarevich wrote
an essay titled "Russophobia"[14][15], which was written
in 1982 and first published in Germany in 1988.[16] His
sources were writings by Soviet emigrants of Jewish origin.[17]
He complained that "Russophobes," who are cunning, hostile
Jewish critics, "dream of transforming Russia into. .. a robot
deprived of all elements of human life."[18]
This publication led to an "unprecedented" public campaign to
remove Shafarevich from the US NAS.[19][20] In an open letter
to the NAS, Shafarevich denied that Russophobia is antisemitic.[21]
Most recently Shafarevich expanded on the subject in his work
"Three thousand year old mystery", concentrated on Jewish
history. Among other things, Shafarevich has extensively
written on the participation of Jews in revolutionary movements:
"Clearly, this "Russian destruction" [during the Russian Civil War]
was made not exclusively by Jewish efforts, but by the Communist
government. However, this doesn't remove the problem as to why
Jewish people were so eager to participate in this "destruction".
[...]
Shafarevich also blames Jews for the Kristallnacht comparing
the preceding events to the September 11, 2001 attacks:
"Its cause was the 1938 murder of vom Rath, 3rd secretary of the
German embassy in Paris, by a Polish Jew Grynszpan. Actually,
this was not the first such case. For example, in 1936 the head
of the Foreign Section of the Nazi party in Switzerland was
murdered by David Frankfurter. The situation resembled modern
situation in the U.S. after September 11, 2001 attacks: the state
had to reply to a terrorist act aimed against its citizen. Hitler's
Germany replied with the Kristallnacht."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Shafarevich
All of this is rather disturbing and certainly makes me see
Shafarevich in a new light. His writings on number theory
are very lucid and useful.
I guess Shafarevich is a creature of the new Russia,
Putin's Russia (to borrow the title of the late Anna
Politkovskaya's book) where ultra-nationalism
and antisemitism are common.
++
Marko Amnell wrote:
>
>I was not familiar with Zoya Krakhmalnikova, but I think it's
>worth pointing out that Igor Shafarevich is a major
>internationally respected mathematician and the founder
>of the important Russian school of algebraic number theory.
>I have two of his books on number theory. I was not familiar
>with his political writings and the accusations of anti-semitism,
>but here's quote from the wikipedia entry on him:
>
>
Prior to the 80s, Shafarevic (and I am going by memory here) was a part
of the samizdat and the resurgence of Orthodoxy in Russia. There were
kind of two schools of though, one school that said to throw out all the
communist (especially NKVD / KGB) collaborators and one school that
suggested that only within what was left of the Church could the the
people be in a position to come back to it. Shafarevic was in both
camps and also among those that felt that Marx, Trotsky and others had
created some kind of uniquely dangerous socialist thought out of
Zionism. You will recall the completely negatively light, also, that
Zionism held in the Soviet Union after 1923 and the fact that the Soviet
Union was for a time allied with Hitler. Unfortunately, Shafarevic fell
prey to some of this manufactured antisemitic propaganda which is also
an unfortunate feature of the incipient Pamjat political movement..
The new Russia is western and has a rising standard of living and is
tolerant of other peoples and faiths, but sometimes has missteps on the
road back to their European roots. You cannot so generalize, I don't
think. However, as for Shafarevic himself, he doesn't seem to have
retracted some of his worst statements, only tried to recast them. He
is quoted by the worst: He was given the equivalent of a lifetime
achievement award for matematics, which he deserves, by Putin. Perhaps
he has spent too much time contemplating Gallois and not enough time
contemplating the Orthodox concept that every single individual on earth
present or past was created in the image of God?
http://christianparty.net/russia.htm
The above, a fascist party, typically misuses and therefore abuses
Christianity for its purposes.
I understand how difficult it is for you to consider someone who was a
great dissident with Solzhenitzen falling prey to this incredible
nationalist tripe in his dotage, like Sozhenitzen but worse. In fact,
Sozhenitzen's ideas may have played a part in those of the less
compellingly well written Shafarevic.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_1_36/ai_n6006323
>
>
>
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell wrote:
[...]
> >I guess Shafarevich is a creature of the new Russia,
> >Putin's Russia (to borrow the title of the late Anna
> >Politkovskaya's book) where ultra-nationalism
> >and antisemitism are common.
>
> The new Russia is western and has a rising standard of living and is
> tolerant of other peoples and faiths, but sometimes has missteps on the
> road back to their European roots. You cannot so generalize, I don't
> think.
Under Putin, Russia has taken a path that is taking the country
away from the West. Russia has roots in both the East and the
West. More Russians have been able to join the consumerist
lifestyle but the Russian economy is not in good shape. Much of
the new wealth is built on the rising price of oil, but other sectors
are underdeveloped, such as IT. There is too little investment in
education and infrastructure, inflation is very high, and pensions
and social security have deteriorated. Seventeen years after the
end of Communism, Moscow and St Petersburg still have no
hot running water in the summer, so people must heat water
on a stove in the kitchen. Even the military (recently showcased with
a Soviet-style Victory Day parade in Red Square including Topol-M
ICBMs) which has received more funding, is plagued by lack of
funds at the grassroots level. Russia lacks freedom of the press.
Democractic institutions exist but do not function as they should.
Corruption is rampant. Half of the price of a public contract goes
to kickbacks. It is simply wrong to say that Russia is a Western
country. Opinion polls show consistently that Russians see
themselves as part of a separate Orthodox Eastern civilization,
not as a part of Western civilization. The socio-political system
is not Western. It is best described as semi-democratic
state-controlled capitalism, and is similar to the Chinese model.
Despite Putin's failures and the rampant corruption, Putin
remains very popular among Russians. Yeltsin, who tried to
introduce true Western institutions, is reviled.
> However, as for Shafarevic himself, he doesn't seem to have
> retracted some of his worst statements, only tried to recast them. He
> is quoted by the worst: He was given the equivalent of a lifetime
> achievement award for matematics, which he deserves, by Putin. Perhaps
> he has spent too much time contemplating Gallois and not enough time
> contemplating the Orthodox concept that every single individual on earth
> present or past was created in the image of God?
>
> http://christianparty.net/russia.htm
>
> The above, a fascist party, typically misuses and therefore abuses
> Christianity for its purposes.
>
> I understand how difficult it is for you to consider someone who was a
> great dissident with Solzhenitzen falling prey to this incredible
> nationalist tripe in his dotage,
Dotage? Shafarevich wrote "Russophobia" in 1982, at the age
of 59.
Catawumpus
>>>>> Michael Bourdeaux, The Guardian, Tuesday May 13 2008 ...
>>>>> Krakhmalnikova became an active democrat, calling on leaders of the
>>>>> Orthodox church to repent of its collaboration with the
>>>>> authorities (which they never> did).
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>>>> First things first, tho: has the Orthodox church _stopped_
>>>> collaborating with the authorities?
...
veritas <comin...@yahoo.com>:
> Would you prefer an antagonistic relationship ?
Can't you read? The _Guardian_ article says
Krakhmalnikova requested the "leaders of the Orthodox church to
repent of its collaboration with the authorities." They
declined. My point is there's not much sense in them repenting
if they're not gonna stop.
> There is nothing wrong with working with government in a partnership
> for the social good and especially if your own survival as a church is
> in the balance as was the case in the Cold War.
> Sort of like the relationship between Pius XII and Mussolini .
So you place pragmatism ahead of principle and you absolve
the Church of collaborating with even the worst evils on
grounds its self-interest is at stake. That certainly explains
where you stand.
> Besides , Constantinian Christianity warrants this partnership with
> the Emperor as the 13th Apostle -- it is what has preserved us
> untainted for 2000 years compared to the tens of thousands of
> non-Orthodox churches.
If you had made it untainted through two millennia I could
understand why you would wonder how it happened. But since
the opposite is true -- you already admitted to complicity with
totalitarianism, and that's just one example -- there's
nothing to explain. Recall that Biblically speaking the Church
is founded on Peter, who betrays Jesus three times before
dawn, thus setting the model for the institution which followed
him.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Sure, during theocratic times when there was a pretence of a Roman
> emperor, there was some engagement of the emperor with the church,
> chiefly ceremonial.
Sure, if you feel embarrassed by the Church's relationship
with the Empire, you'll try to pretend they just had a few
casual dates, nothing serious, and never went beyond first base.
> The reigning emperor called church councils, but
> the highest (or after Rome was excommunicated for heresy) or the local
> Patriarch chaired and opened the meeting. Some emperors were considered
> heretics. The appellation julian the Apostate is a prime example
Apostasy doesn't make a good example of heresy:
different things. Julian tried to restore paganism, re-opening
the temples and removing the privileges Rome had given
Christianity, including the money the Church had been receiving
from state coffers.
In other words, Christianity was _already_ Rome's official
religion, a status granted it by the Theodosian code, which
went even further by banning other religions and turning heresy
into a crime. Example:
... According to the apostolic teaching and the
doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one
deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal
majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the
followers of this law to assume the title Catholic
Christians; but as for the others, since in out
judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that
the shall be branded with the ignominious name of
heretics, and shall not presume to give their
conventicles the name of churches. They will
suffer in the first place the chastisement of
divine condemnation an the second the punishment
of out authority, in accordance with the will of
heaven shall decide to inflict.
Theodosian Code 16.1.2. Source: http://tinyurl.com/5ohkeo.
> The system of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's included such
> things as paying taxes and meeting other legal obligations.
A misunderstanding of the Gospel-saying, though in keeping
with the Pauline version.
> We have thousands upon thousands, some in our recent century of
> communism and fascism, Christian martyrs who chose the way of God
> instead of the way of a non Orthodox ruler serving the cause of evil in
> one respect or another.
Lovely for you, I'm sure. But the standard spelled out in
Romans 13:1-6 doesn't allow for picking and choosing which
rulers to reject and which to obey. It says the powers that be
are established by God and warns "they that resist shall
receive to themselves damnation." Of course the Bible is a big
book, and not always a consistent one, but going by that
criterion, your martyrs are all damned for rejecting God's will.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> WEll, there's bad and then there is anti-Christian, i.e. evil. So, you
> do see a fight against the Mongols, later a large effort against the
> Ottomans and other Islamic invaders, but nothing large against serfdome
> outside some intellectuals and writers.
What's missing, so far as I know, is any resistance by the
Eastern Orthodox church to the Czars or the rulers who've
followed them, allowing for individual exceptions. Same in the
West, where the link between Church and Empire dates to
Constantine, though some Christians have strongly protested the
relationship.
-- Catawumpus
Dan
Is there a subtext here? Having stated the "problem", do you wish to
propose a "solution"? Quakerism? Evangelical Protestantism?
Don't forget that throughout the Soviet era, there were always
Orthodox Christians in active resistance who worshipped "in the
catacombs". The phenomenon has evolved since 1989, but such people are
still present and to some extent they form the "conscience" of the ROC.
++
Catawumpus wrote:
Not at all, as there are Orthodox interpretations of the Bible to
consider. Note that the Theodosian Code was superceded by the Justiniac,
among others.
++
Catawumpus wrote:
Why should a civilization seek anarchy?
++
Marko Amnell wrote:
You make some blanket statements here that far exceed the reality of the
transitional and economic problems you suggest. If you would like to
continue discussion, you might want to attempt to back up your
generalizations with reading links.
Catawumpus
>> What's missing, so far as I know, is any resistance by the
>> Eastern Orthodox church to the Czars or the rulers who've
>> followed them, allowing for individual exceptions. Same in the
>> West, where the link between Church and Empire dates to
>> Constantine, though some Christians have strongly protested the
>> relationship.
Dan <danny...@gmail.com>:
> Is there a subtext here?
Yes, infinitely many of them, but it's turtles all the way
down.
> Having stated the "problem", do you wish to
> propose a "solution"? Quakerism? Evangelical Protestantism?
I mentioned Kierkegaard somewhere nearby. Not saying he's
right about everything -- not at all -- but his _Attack on
Christendom_ is well-aimed and on-topic. I could also bring in
folks like the Bogomils, or Simone Weil, or we could talk
about the nice Jewish kids described in the NT. But that means
coping with the scriptural inconsistencies as well as the
people compelled to iron them out in service of whichever brand
of dogma.
> Don't forget that throughout the Soviet era, there were always
> Orthodox Christians in active resistance who worshipped "in the
> catacombs". The phenomenon has evolved since 1989, but such people are
> still present and to some extent they form the "conscience" of the ROC.
Not forgetting. I carefully left room for exceptions like
those.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Not at all
Yes, definitely. Setting aside questions about scriptural
inconsistency, the Church could defend its alliance with
temporal authorities by citing Romans 13:1-6, which claims they
should be obeyed because God established them. The logic
works very well, although the premise is disputable. If God is
the Almighty -- i.e., if "there is no power but of God" --
then everything accords with his will: "the powers that be are
ordained of God."
That notion clearly isn't confined to Orthodox rulers. No
such qualification, and besides, there weren't any at the
time. Instead it applies to whoever's in charge. Fighting the
existing powers is sinful: "Whosoever therefore resisteth
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God," so it follows "they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Not my
kinda politics, but there it is: a demand for obedience to the
powers that be.
> as there are Orthodox interpretations of the Bible to
> consider.
Of course you can consider any interpretations you care to.
> Note that the Theodosian Code was superceded by the Justiniac,
> among others.
Hell, the Roman Empire was superceded by Goths and Vandals
in the West, Turks over on the Eastern side. But the
Theodosian Code makes it plain that the link between Church and
State dates back to antiquity. So for that matter does the
Justinian version, which equally affirms "the saving revelation
of our mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" and rejects
heresy, punishing dissenters in various ways: their assemblies
are banned, ditto their books, they're forbidden to have "a
house of worship, or a place of prayer," blasphemy is penalized
with death, and so on.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Why should a civilization seek anarchy?
Why would you change the subject? Never mind. Rhetorical
question. Autocracy is very uncivilized, nothing more than
the law of the jungle with a pretentious crown tottering on its
head. Ditto other social hierarchies: piles of monkeys
fighting to be on top. So for civilized life in any meaningful
sense, anarchism is the choice.
Also gets some support in the NT. Not an argument for its
value, of course, merely an observation. The end-times
prophesy in 1 Cor. 15:24 says Jesus will "put down all rule and
all authority and power" in the world -- not exactly
flattering to Constantines, Alexanders, Putins or Bushes -- and
over in the Gospels Jesus teaches against calling anyone
"father" on this earth, restricting that title to God in heaven
and similarly arguing there's only one master, viz. the
messiah: an obvious rejection of earthly authority (this is in
Matthew 23:8-10) followed by a prediction that the social
order will be overthrown: the exalted will be humbled, and the
humble will be exalted.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
First reference:
"Revolution from Above: The truth about the latest Russian
Revolution", by Marko Amnell, in the magazine Nordicum, 1/1998.
In this article I review the book _Revolution from Above: The demise
of the Soviet System_ by David Kotz and Fred Weir, showing how
it is an accurate description of the chaotic and lawless way in which
the so-called oligarchs gained their possessions.
What you call my "blanket statements" are merely summaries
of the conventional analysis of the current condition of
Russian society under the Putin/Medvedev regime in the
Western press. Of course that is not how the regime describes
itself but that is not surprising, given its lack of support for
freedom of the press. As a former journalist (correspondent
for Agence France-Presse) freedom of the press is something
I feel I have a stake in defending. I alluded earlier to
Anna Politkovskaya. She was an independent Russian
journalist who was persecuted, and eventually murdered,
because of her truthful coverage of issues such as the
Chechen war. She is not the only Russian journalist
who was murdered because of her work. There have been
many others.
Second reference:
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/21/1148.html
This is a link to the article "A New Epoch of Confrontation"
by Sergei Karaganov, a Russian political scientist. He
correctly describes the new Russian socio-political system
as "authoritarian semi-democratic capitalism". My description
of the current Russian socio-political system is based
on his analysis. If you disagree with my description, may
I suggest that you read Karaganov's article and address
his ideas.
++
Catawumpus wrote:
>++ <fri...@spambot.com>:
>
>
>
>>Why should a civilization seek anarchy?
>>
>>
>
> Why would you change the subject? Never mind.
>
And why should you make generalizations not supported by historic record
and then condemn Orthodoxy? If someone makes a point, like the
Theodosian Code not having been enforceable and the Code largely
rewritten in many aspects, you just ignore it.
The fact that my comment actually was relevant and not caught by you
does not turn it into changing the subject, it only puts it in the
category of being categorized by you. Your arguments are generally non
supported.
> Rhetorical
>question.
>
generalization and value judgement
>Autocracy is very uncivilized,
>
There are different kinds of system that might be consideree, in some
respect, autocratic. Again, generalization and value judgement
> nothing more than
>the law of the jungle
>
generalization and value judgement
>with a pretentious
>
generalization and value judgement
>crown tottering on its
>head. Ditto other social hierarchies: piles of monkeys
>fighting to be on top. So for civilized life in any meaningful
>sense, anarchism is the choice.
>
>
Anarchism is never a choice. Think about it
>
> Also gets some support in the NT. Not an argument for its
>value, of course, merely an observation. The end-times
>prophesy in 1 Cor. 15:24 says Jesus will "put down all rule and
>all authority and power" in the world -- not exactly
>flattering to Constantines, Alexanders, Putins or Bushes -- and
>over in the Gospels Jesus teaches against calling anyone
>"father" on this earth, restricting that title to God in heaven
>and similarly arguing there's only one master, viz. the
>messiah: an obvious rejection of earthly authority (this is in
>Matthew 23:8-10) followed by a prediction that the social
>order will be overthrown: the exalted will be humbled, and the
>humble will be exalted.
>
>
Have you a small problem with schizophrenia. Do you find yourself
muttering to yourself? Do you actually expect people to listen to this
stream of consciousness , unsupported generalizations and value
judgements and somehow give it credence to some purpose.
Yawn........
Re-energizing
Stepping on catawumpus's tail,
Listening to a muted virtual screech,
And toddling off to Vespers.
>-- Catawumpus
>
>
>
++
Marko Amnell wrote:
>O
OK, post it here. I'd like to see how, in the last five years, half the
cost of a public contract is kickbacks, for example. You would be
posting your own article from 1998. And something recent?
>In this article I review the book _Revolution from Above: The demise
>of the Soviet System_ by David Kotz and Fred Weir, showing how
>it is an accurate description of the chaotic and lawless way in which
>the so-called oligarchs gained their possessions.
>
>
And you are doing it a decade ago. There are vast structural changes in
Russia, and in different parts of CIS today and in the Soviet successor
states. The dynamic has necessarily changed. I would be interested in
seeing your article and any recent articles. When were you last there?
>What you call my "blanket statements" are merely summaries
>of the conventional analysis of the current condition of
>Russian society under the Putin/Medvedev regime in the
>Western press. Of course that is not how the regime describes
>itself but that is not surprising, given its lack of support for
>freedom of the press. As a former journalist (correspondent
>for Agence France-Presse) freedom of the press is something
>I feel I have a stake in defending.
>
Where were you reporting from on what when? Numerous people on this
newsgroup regularly post (I do) on media issues in majority (or large
minority) Orthodox countries, many of which are emerging from different
sorts and degrees of socialism and communism and have suffered from
varoius kinds of media controls over time.
> I alluded earlier to
>Anna Politkovskaya. She was an independent Russian
>journalist who was persecuted, and eventually murdered,
>because of her truthful coverage of issues such as the
>Chechen war. She is not the only Russian journalist
>who was murdered because of her work. There have been
>many others.
>
>
I would think that those of us who have known of her for decades have
known her from her work with the samizdat press, with mostly religious
issues. You are appearing to me in the general Eastern Orthodox newsgroup.
>Second reference:
>
>http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/21/1148.html
>
>This is a link to the article "A New Epoch of Confrontation"
>by Sergei Karaganov, a Russian political scientist. He
>correctly describes the new Russian socio-political system
>as "authoritarian semi-democratic capitalism". My description
>of the current Russian socio-political system is based
>on his analysis. If you disagree with my description, may
>I suggest that you read Karaganov's article and address
>his ideas.
>
>
I'll take a look, but I am back right now from Vigil and about to eat
dinner.
Galina
>
>
>
Marko Amnell
> I'd like to see how, in the last five years, half the
> cost of a public contract is kickbacks, for example.
My sister's wedding party starts in a few hours so
I don't have time to discuss this with you at the moment.
But I can address your question about kickbacks.
That was a claim made by Anders Aslund.
He has been studying the Russian economy for
many years, as you may know. Here's a quote from
an article published in the International Herald Tribune
on 7 May 2008:
"But fresh problems have emerged, and problems that thus
far have eluded Kremlin solutions remain. [...]
Chief among them, said Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the
Peterson Institute for International Economics, in Washington,
are inflation, the poor state of public infrastructure and endemic
corruption. [...]
Long-term solutions are more challenging. Oil production has begun
to
decline, and Russia's infrastructure largely dates from Soviet
times.
The huge investments required to revive both would create more
inflationary pressures.
Aslund said efforts at capital investment risked being squandered by
corruption, which is so pervasive that kickbacks on public works and
energy projects can reach 50 percent.
"You can't build infrastructure if half the invested money has to go
to kickbacks," he said."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/07/europe/08russia.2.php?page=2
If you want the evidence that half of the cost of a public
contract in Russia today goes to kickbacks, I suggest
you contact Anders Aslund. Or you might start by
searching for more in-depth articles by him.
Catawumpus
> >>Why should a civilization seek anarchy?
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> Why would you change the subject? Never mind. Rhetorical
>> question. Autocracy is very uncivilized, nothing more than
>> the law of the jungle with a pretentious crown tottering on its
>> head. Ditto other social hierarchies: piles of monkeys
>> fighting to be on top. So for civilized life in any meaningful
>> sense, anarchism is the choice.
++:
> And why should you make generalizations not supported by historic record
> and then condemn Orthodoxy?
Why are you making foolish, unsupported accusations? They
go nicely with your topic-changing, so I'd guess the
motivation is the same: defensiveness about the cozy relations
between Church and State.
By the way, you're on-record confusing my remark about the
preaching in Romans 13:1-6 with a claim about history. I
pointed out those verses demand obedience to the powers that be
without any limitation to Orthodox rulers, calling down
damnation on those who choose to resist the reigning
authorities. No room there to decide which rulers you'll rebel
against and which you'll follow.
> If someone makes a point, like the
> Theodosian Code not having been enforceable and the Code largely
> rewritten in many aspects, you just ignore it.
Now you're descending into dishonesty. I answered clearly
and directly when you said that "the Theodosian Code was
superceded by the Justiniac" by reminding you what you tried to
overlook. First, the Theodosian Code shows that the
alliance of Church and Crown dates back to antiquity regardless
what happened later in time. Secondly, the Justinian Code
does the same: it insists on the assertedly "saving revelation
of our mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" and rejects
heresy, punishing dissenters in various ways: their assemblies
are banned, ditto their books, they're forbidden to have "a
house of worship, or a place of prayer," blasphemy is penalized
with death, etc.
You didn't claim the Theodosian Code was unenforceable, so
I couldn't possibly have ignored you. I agree dogmatic
assertions don't carry much weight, but to say the Roman Empire
was unable to apply any of its laws against heresy is
nonsensical. You might just as well claim that Christians were
never persecuted by Rome.
> The fact that my comment actually was relevant and not caught by you
> does not turn it into changing the subject, it only puts it in the
> category of being categorized by you. Your arguments are generally non
> supported.
Are you generally a liar, or are you celebrating a special
holiday? I've supported my arguments about the scriptures
with chapter and verse, I've backed up my observation about the
Justinian laws with examples and quotes, same for my
statements about the Theodosian Code, and where I gave readings
or offered judgments, I usually explained my reasoning.
You've answered by waving your arms while shouting hysterically.
> There are different kinds of system that might be consideree, in some
> respect, autocratic.
Obviously. And like I said, the autocratic ones are a bad
example of civilized life, since they're nothing more than
jungle-law with pretensions: the biggest monkey enthroned with
a crown balanced on his head.
> generalization and value judgement
No fucking joke. That's precisely what you requested when
you asked "Why should a civilization seek anarchy?": a
question about civilization in general and the value of certain
social arrangements.
> Anarchism is never a choice.
Not a popular one, certainly, but still a choice alongside
others -- so far as there are any. "Men make their own
history, but they do not make it as they please." Truth, since
history is often unpleasurable.
> Think about it
Done. Now you try.
>> Also gets some support in the NT. Not an argument for its
>> value, of course, merely an observation. The end-times
>> prophesy in 1 Cor. 15:24 says Jesus will "put down all rule and
>> all authority and power" in the world -- not exactly
>> flattering to Constantines, Alexanders, Putins or Bushes -- and
>> over in the Gospels Jesus teaches against calling anyone
>> "father" on this earth, restricting that title to God in heaven
>> and similarly arguing there's only one master, viz. the
>> messiah: an obvious rejection of earthly authority (this is in
>> Matthew 23:8-10) followed by a prediction that the social
>> order will be overthrown: the exalted will be humbled, and the
>> humble will be exalted.
> Have you a small problem with schizophrenia. Do you find yourself
> muttering to yourself? Do you actually expect people to listen to this
> stream of consciousness , unsupported generalizations and value
> judgements and somehow give it credence to some purpose.
You have a problem with reading. Above I showed anarchism
-- the topic you raised -- is sometimes supported in the
canonical NT, backing up my claim by offering chapter and verse
from the Gospels and Paul. I also threw in a reference to
revolution: the overturning of the social order Jesus predicts
in several places.
-- Catawumpus
++
You got your chance to have a discussion without your taking
responsibility for your writing, which was spammed to numerous
netgroups. Whatever you wrote needs no discussion in your mind and as I
was the only person willing to converse with you at all (unless someone
I have on killfile entered the discussion, in which case, happy
pontificating), and as you seem to take my particular discussion as
either inadequate or as a stepping point to insults, I have decided to
no longer bother.
Whatever it was that you said about that wonderful pious Ukranian, Zoya
Krahmaljnikova I cannot honestly remember, I do not feel the incentive
to even go through the thread to reproduce, but in case you really are
honoring her memory after her falling asleep in the Lord, know that I am
remembering her in my prayers, that I will offer up the humble candle
for her today at liturgy, that I remembered her at Matins and before
that at Vespers, and that we can all be reasonably sure that she will
lie light in this earth, and that her soul will rest with the righteous.
Lesna i zemja, Eternal Memory to Zoya!
++
Marko Amnell wrote:
I've met and spoken to Mr. Aslund on a few occasions when he was
involved with the Carnegie Foundation. His statement above that you are
relying on for the level of corruption is parenthetical and rhetorical
at best and hardly to be relied upon as evidence. He is one of many
people studying the Russian economy around here. I think I attended a
discussion of his on the Ukranian "Orange" revolution in 2006.
You are misinterpreting his statement into a generalization. The
Peterson Institute has a website, no need to do research to find Aslund
who is also, as I recall, on the adjunct (meeting he teaches the odd
course) at Georgetown U. As for particular writing of his, or your own,
post them if you want in support of your statements.
Still waiting for you to post your own article that you cited. You did
start to vet yourself as a reporter on the area from France Presse and
cited your own publication?
Whatever any of this has to do with Zoya Krahmaljnikova?
>
>
>
Marko Amnell
[...]
> I've met and spoken to Mr. Aslund on a few occasions when he was
> involved with the Carnegie Foundation. His statement above that you are
> relying on for the level of corruption is parenthetical and rhetorical
> at best and hardly to be relied upon as evidence. He is one of many
> people studying the Russian economy around here. I think I attended a
> discussion of his on the Ukranian "Orange" revolution in 2006.
>
> You are misinterpreting his statement into a generalization.
Nah. Aslund states very clearly that corruption is a major
problem in Russia. Whether it is 50 per cent or 20 per cent,
those are still extremely high percentages. And quite frankly,
your total unwillingness to accept this basic fact about the
Russia economy makes me unwilling to waste any more of
my time trying to educate you about the economic problems
of your own country. But just by Googling I found numerous
other articles dealing with Russia's corruption problems.
Here's one quote, and this will be my last post on this subject:
"...opinion polls show that Russians are as upset as any
other people about corruption and that they have more of it.
Second, the mismanagement of the large state corporations
and alleged kickbacks of 20 percent to 50 percent on major
infrastructure projects have gotten out of control. In other
corrupt countries, people are upset at mere 2 percent kickbacks.
Russia's corruption is some of the largest in terms of the
absolute amount individuals receive and the relative share
of the kickbacks."
(There Is Nothing Normal About Corruption, 23 April 2008
By Anders Aslund)
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/362262.htm
Did you catch what he said? That people in other countries
are upset at corruption that reaches a mere 2 percent
in kickbacks. In Russia the kickbacks are TEN TO TWENTY
times larger than that. Deny it all you like. It's not my
problem. But I am starting to wonder whether you are a
personal beneficiary of these kickbacks.
++
Marko Amnell wrote:
>On May 18, 2:23 pm, ++ <fri...@spambot.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>>I've met and spoken to Mr. Aslund on a few occasions when he was
>>involved with the Carnegie Foundation. His statement above that you are
>>relying on for the level of corruption is parenthetical and rhetorical
>>at best and hardly to be relied upon as evidence. He is one of many
>>people studying the Russian economy around here. I think I attended a
>>discussion of his on the Ukranian "Orange" revolution in 2006.
>>
>>You are misinterpreting his statement into a generalization.
>>
>>
>
>Nah. Aslund states very clearly that corruption is a major
>problem in Russia. Whether it is 50 per cent or 20 per cent,
>those are still extremely high percentages. And quite frankly,
>your total unwillingness to accept this basic fact about the
>Russia economy makes me unwilling to waste any more of
>my time trying to educate you about the economic problems
>of your own country.
>
Hmm, let's go back to what I said. I suggested that the conclusions you
were drawing were disproportionate to reality. I really doubt that you
are a journalist, that you know anything much about Russia, or, in fact,
that you are very knowledgeable about economics. Thus, I'm not very
worried about having to give up your illusion of educating me.
You attempted to credential yourself as a France Presse journalist.
What hubris. You don't have to pretend to be in a position to educate
me to answer the simple questions I asked before concerning your stated
qualifications to educate us all. I'll repeat them. Please provide
your areas of expertise and where and when and what you covered for
France Presse as a self stated international journalist. And do please
post your own article you wrote yourself in the 90s that you published
in the same. The only thing Google seems to know about you is that you
wrote a review of a book on number theory.
> But just by Googling I found numerous
>other articles dealing with Russia's corruption problems.
>Here's one quote, and this will be my last post on this subject:
>
>"...opinion polls show that Russians are as upset as any
>other people about corruption and that they have more of it.
>Second, the mismanagement of the large state corporations
>and alleged kickbacks of 20 percent to 50 percent on major
>infrastructure projects have gotten out of control. In other
>corrupt countries, people are upset at mere 2 percent kickbacks.
>Russia's corruption is some of the largest in terms of the
>absolute amount individuals receive and the relative share
>of the kickbacks."
>
>(There Is Nothing Normal About Corruption, 23 April 2008
>By Anders Aslund)
>
>
This is a quote by the person you quoted the last time, Aslund, who you
represented as representing the greater end of that range as the norm.
Why don't you simply apologize for misrepresenting the fellow originally?
>http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/362262.htm
>
>Did you catch what he said? That people in other countries
>are upset at corruption that reaches a mere 2 percent
>in kickbacks. In Russia the kickbacks are TEN TO TWENTY
>times larger than that. Deny it all you like. It's not my
>problem. But I am starting to wonder whether you are a
>personal beneficiary of these kickbacks.
>
>
I didn't affirm or deny any particular figures. You are the netbaby who
generalized and misrepresented figures. 10% is not 20% and 20% is not
50%% and instances are not norms. Evidence is not someone's article,
unless it is empirical data included in that article and that empirical
data is itself referenced. Even then, it can be problemmatic and
challenged. I wonder what Prof. Aslund would think of this subthread
and your peculiar representation of his work?
>
>
>
Marko Amnell
Everything you write below about me and what I said
is a misrepresentation. It's pointless to continue
talking to you.
Here are some of your misrepresentations (the list is
not complete):
1) I said I am a former journalist. This is correct.
You claim I said I am now working as a jounalist.
I did not say that. I was employed by AFP
(and its finance unit AFX) during the 1990s.
2) You claim I referred to an article I wrote for AFP
in the 1990s. I did not; I referred to an article I
wrote for the magazine Nordicum, a business
magazine. Another instance of your failure to read.
3) You claim that I said that I covered Russia
for some news organization. I never said that.
4) I did not claim that I provided evidence for
Anders Aslund's claim that 50 percent of the price
of public contracts in Russia are kickbacks. I said
"IF you want the evidence " for such and such a
claim, then contact Anders Aslund.
You see how this goes? You misread everything
I write. I don't have the time to correct all your
mistakes in basic reading.
Of course the 50 per cent claim is impressionistic!
I wrote it as part of an impressionstic description
of why Russia is not a Western country. And on
Usenet! The important point is that there is a large
amount of corruption in Russia. If you bothered
to read any of the links I provided, you would
have noticed this little tidbit:
"According to Transparency International, the only
country with higher income per capita and more
corruption than Russia is Equatorial Guinea. That is
hardly a standard worthy of a great nation."
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/362262.htm
Still no evidence? Well, why don't you contact
Transparency International and ask them how
they arrived at that conclusion.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
veritas
<marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi ! I see you live in Finland . I used to live in Sweden for a long
time in the 1990's.
I am thinking of doing this :
http://www.joensuu.fi/tkk/avoin/opiskelu/verkko-opinnot/orthod/index.htm
What is the standing of this university ? And this short degree ,
seems less than a full Bachelor's degree . What is it in the
British-American system , if you know.
I am an Orthodox Christian living in Sydney,Australia . I don't know
what newsgroup you are reading this in and excuse me for my request
but I thought you might be able to help ..
Hej da !
Peter
Sydney,Australia
Marko Amnell
[...]
> I really doubt that you
> are a journalist, that you know anything much about Russia, or, in fact,
> that you are very knowledgeable about economics.
As I said already, I am a former journalist. Doubt it all you like.
But here is one of the articles I wrote for AFP's finance unit
AFX, preserved on some website in Brazil...
http://www.3g.com.br/noticia/internacional/abril/nokia_not_running.html
I'm sure you could find more if you Google diligently...
Marko Amnell
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 21:31:32 -0700 (PDT), Marko Amnell
>
>
> Hi ! I see you live in Finland . I used to live in Sweden for a long
> time in the 1990's.
>
> I am thinking of doing this :
>
> http://www.joensuu.fi/tkk/avoin/opiskelu/verkko-opinnot/orthod/index.htm
> What is the standing of this university ? And this short degree ,
> seems less than a full Bachelor's degree . What is it in the
> British-American system , if you know.
The "Basic Study Unit of Orthodox Theology (Approbatur)" is
roughly equivalent to a "minor" in the American system.
It's not a degree but a small part of an undergraduate degree.
The University of Joensuu is, however, a perfectly legitimate
and respected university.
Catawumpus
> You got your chance to have a discussion without your taking
> responsibility for your writing
I've accepted responsibility for what I've said by backing
it up with chapter and verse, when I've offered assertions
about the scriptures, with quotes and examples when I've talked
about history, and by explaining the reasoning behind my
judgments and readings. It's too bad that you haven't done the
same in your replies.
Summary. I said that the Church's complicity with earthly
rulers dates all the way back to antiquity, giving the
Theodosian Code as an illustration. You insisted the Justinian
Code made revisions, but it echoes its predecessor both in
reciting Christian dogma and in banning heresy, as I impolitely
reminded you.
Rom. 13:1-6 provides a justification, questions concerning
scriptural consistency to the side, since it commands
obedience to the powers that be, but it doesn't limit itself to
Orthodox rulers, contending that anyone who resists the
reigning authorities is damned for rejecting God's will. Which
puts your martyrs to Communism in hell, since those verses
don't leave room for accepting some rulers but rejecting others.
You asked me why a civilization should seek anarchy. Easy.
Autocracy is highly uncivilized, nothing but the law of the
jungle crowned with pretensions, and that theme carries over to
other, supposedly more enlightened societies. Anarchism is
the only civil choice. As a point of interest (that is, not an
argument), it's supported by the Gospels and the Apostle in
those places where they deny worldly authority and look forward
to revolution.
> Whatever it was that you said about that wonderful pious Ukranian, Zoya
I said that Krahmaljnikova's idea Russian Orthodox leaders
should "repent of its collaboration with the authorities" --
according to the news article, they declined -- would make more
sense if they had stopped.
-- Catawumpus
veritas
Thank you somuch for replying .Take care up there in Finland ! :)
Peter
infowolf1
Resistance to authorities in the sense of sedition and
overthrow, is not the same thing as refusal to cooperate
with evil orders.
"we ought to obey God rather than men," said Peter when
he'd been ordered by lawful authorities to quit preaching
the Gospel. Now, not all things are of equal importance.
The Gospel is first.
But there is plenty of "God is no respecter of persons"
(rank, social distinctions of any kind, to validate abuse
by some double standard) and be kind to your underlings
that renders most of the stuff that people who fight against
traditional societies and tyrannical governments are
concerned about, definite sins. And as such, proper objects
of repression by governments that have become at least
somewhat Christian.
Failure to do so is not the issue.
There have been anarchistic sounding denunciations of
abuses and pretensions by crowned heads and rich people
by Christian writers from early times, i.e., Orthodox. And
Ivan the Terrible killed a monk or priest who denounced him
to his face for his abuses of the people, and the victim was
made a saint of some sort, if I remember correctly.
Justina
*Anarcissie*
Paul doesn't fool around with nuances, however, at least
not in Romans 13. He simply says "Let every soul be
subject to the existing authorities." There is no visible
irony, double meaning, exceptions, or waffling. A few
sentences later he demands full submission with regard
to taxes, revenue, respect, and honor.
++
Marko Amnell wrote:
>Everything you write below about me and what I said
>is a misrepresentation. It's pointless to continue
>talking to you.
>
>Here are some of your misrepresentations (the list is
>not complete):
>
>1) I said I am a former journalist. This is correct.
>You claim I said I am now working as a jounalist.
>I did not say that. I was employed by AFP
>(and its finance unit AFX) during the 1990s.
>
>
Thank you for finally clarifying when and under what circumstances you
used to be a journalist. I had asked ou the about what where when and
how of the Journalist you claimed to be for France Presse. Since we
have a number of French Readers on this newsgroup, I was sure they would
find you an interesting person .
>2) You claim I referred to an article I wrote for AFP
>in the 1990s. I did not; I referred to an article I
>wrote for the magazine Nordicum, a business
>magazine. Another instance of your failure to read.
>
>
Actually, I just asked you a couple times to post your own article and
to refer to anything contemporary. If by the second or third time I
forgot in what publication your one article resided, I am heartily sorry.
>3) You claim that I said that I covered Russia
>for some news organization. I never said that.
>
>4) I did not claim that I provided evidence for
>Anders Aslund's claim that 50 percent of the price
>of public contracts in Russia are kickbacks. I said
>"IF you want the evidence " for such and such a
>claim, then contact Anders Aslund.
>
>
You made the claim. I asked you to post some evidence for your
statement. Then you suggested I research Aslund. You refuted your own
statement, and the statement that Aslund made such a statement, but
getting around to quoting one of his many articles. You publically
established the level of your reading ksills and knowledge of Russian
area studies....
>You see how this goes? You misread everything
>I write. I don't have the time to correct all your
>mistakes in basic reading.
>
>Of course the 50 per cent claim is impressionistic!
>I wrote it as part of an impressionstic description
>of why Russia is not a Western country. And on
>Usenet! The important point is that there is a large
>amount of corruption in Russia. If you bothered
>to read any of the links I provided, you would
>have noticed this little tidbit:
>
>
You're assuming that you know even a tenth of what a considerable number
of people on this very newsgroup, alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox,
know about Russia, including about its economy. And then you talk about
how you think you are in a position to educate people... :) Have you
ever been to Russia? Do you have any link to Russian culture? Do you
read the language? Speak it? We've got a number of people on this
forum who read Russian, who have owrked in Russia, even a few Russians,
who are siiting at their keyboards with bated breath, just waiting for
you to educate them......lol
>"According to Transparency International, the only
>country with higher income per capita and more
>corruption than Russia is Equatorial Guinea. That is
>hardly a standard worthy of a great nation."
>
>http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/362262.htm
>
>Still no evidence? Well, why don't you contact
>Transparency International and ask them how
>they arrived at that conclusion.
>
>
And you are assuming that people here aren't familiar with Transparency
International...
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell wrote:
[...]
> >"According to Transparency International, the only
> >country with higher income per capita and more
> >corruption than Russia is Equatorial Guinea. That is
> >hardly a standard worthy of a great nation."
>
> >http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/362262.htm
>
> >Still no evidence? Well, why don't you contact
> >Transparency International and ask them how
> >they arrived at that conclusion.
>
> And you are assuming that people here aren't familiar with Transparency
> International...
Let's get back to my initial disagreement with you.
You said that Russia is a Western country. That
is what I disagreed with. The high level of corruption
is just one indication that Russia is not a Western
country. It's not even the most fundamental reason.
The fundamental reason is that Russia has
developed a new model of economic development.
This is an interesting turn of events in world
history. Among other things, it disproves Francis
Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history."
The most interesting theorist of this new model
of economic development is Sergei Karaganov.
I posted a link to one of his articles earlier.
Here is the link again.
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/21/1148.html
Below is the part that deals with the new model
of economic development. If you want to argue
that Russia is a Western country, you should
counter Karaganov's arguments (and other
similar arguments showing that Russia is not
developing according to the Western model).
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is yet another aspect to this bitter global rivalry, namely, the
emerging struggle between two models of development – liberal-
democratic capitalism of the traditional West, and “authoritarian
capitalism” led by the Asian “tigers” and “dragons.” The West
considered the rapid economic progress of the Southeast Asian
countries and South Korea to be an exception rather than a rule.
However, China’s rapid growth, despite predictions over the past 20
years about its imminent collapse, does not permit indulging in
escapism anymore.
The victory of liberal-democratic capitalism in the Cold War created
an illusion that this victory was final. The “end of history,”
predicted by Francis Fukuyama, has not materialized, but not simply
because the collapse of the bloc system has brought about growing
chaos. As it turned out, competition is not over: the defeated planned
socialist economy has been replaced by a new model, which potentially
is very attractive, especially to the former Third World countries –
that is, the majority of humanity. This model is authoritarian semi-
democratic capitalism, effective economically and acceptable
politically.
Unlike Communism, capitalism ensures the growth (albeit an uneven
growth) of the wellbeing for the majority of people; and unlike
totalitarian Communism, authoritarianism – or limited democracy –
ensures an acceptable level of personal freedom for the same
majority.
The rivalry between the two varieties of capitalism was analyzed by
Israeli strategist Azar Gat in the influential U.S. journal Foreign
Affairs. “Authoritarian capitalist states, today exemplified by China
and Russia, may represent a viable alternative path to modernity,
which in turn suggests that there is nothing inevitable about liberal
democracy’s ultimate victory – or future dominance,” he wrote. “A
successful nondemocratic Second World could then be regarded by many
as an attractive alternative to liberal democracy.”
It may well be that “authoritarian capitalism” is only one stage in
the development toward a more liberal model. After all, before the
second half of the last century, many countries in Western Europe and
the United States had features that are now characteristic of those
states that have so-called authoritarian capitalism.
Nevertheless, the liberal-democratic victors now see that they are
beginning to suffer defeat. The “mission” in the Middle East has
weakened the global position of the United States, which in turn has
made democracy per se less attractive. Furthermore, the mostly
unsuccessful ‘color revolutions’ imported to former Soviet republics
was a less noticeable, yet substantial, blow to the idea of democracy.
Meanwhile, the democratic elections in Palestine have plunged the
country into a civil war. Lebanon, which is quite democratic, has been
set on fire, while its neighbor – the authoritarian Syria – is
developing quite well.
The competition of models is not just a struggle for the sense of
moral superiority. In the long run, the victory of a particular model
will be translated into a redistribution of manpower and other
resources in favor of those states that support such a model. The
period from the late 1980s to the beginning of the 2000s saw a huge
redistribution of resources in favor of the United States and Western
Europe. Now the process may reverse itself, especially as the success
of authoritarian capitalism and the weakening of the positions of
democracy have coincided in time with another tectonic shift: the
center of the global economy and geopolitics is moving away from the
Euro-Atlantic to the Asian space.
States that are liberal-democratic yet economically weak must
automatically orient themselves to the West and follow in the wake of
its policy. However, if another model proves successful, some states
will have an opportunity to reorient themselves, or at least have more
room for maneuver.
Russia, for example – by demonstrating to the post-Soviet and
developing countries that they can successfully organize their
economies in other ways, and not only according to the dependent
liberal-democratic model of Central and Eastern Europe – is restoring,
albeit very slowly, its ability to attract medium-developed societies
and countries. Many neighboring societies, tired of poverty, chaos and
uncertainty, are eager to emulate the sovereign system of Russia,
which is showing growth and is better governed. In addition,
authoritarian rulers of many states prefer to have a tough yet
predictable Russia that would not encroach on their sovereignty as
their neighbor.
History has pushed Russia into the center of a new competitive
struggle between the liberal-democratic and authoritarian models of
capitalism. Russia is a key state from the point of view of
competition between political and socio-economic models, and is,
moreover, capable of tipping the military-political balance in the
world.
Mistrust toward the authoritarian development model largely explains
European suspicion about Russia’s energy policy. An authoritarian
state finds it easier to manipulate its energy and other assets for
foreign-policy purposes. In this sense, democracy, especially weak
democracy, is more convenient for partners, as it is less suited for
such manipulation.
So, Russia is now in the midst of two new competitions at once, which
will largely determine the future of the world. These are competitions
between energy producers and consumers for control over energy
resources, and between different varieties of capitalism. Moreover,
Russia is situated on three critical divides – between radical Islam
and Christian civilization, between the rich and the poor, and between
Europe and Asia.
In the past, the latter divide was a choice between modernity and
backwardness, freedom and tyranny, individualism and collectivism, and
capitalism and feudalism, and in the long run, between progress and
stagnation. Today, however, the rapidly growing East has actually
become a new West.
Catawumpus
> Perhaps these poor words may help this dispute to settle.
> Resistance to authorities in the sense of sedition and
> overthrow, is not the same thing as refusal to cooperate
> with evil orders.
According to Rom. 13:1-6, the authorities don't give evil
orders: they're good ministers and obeying them is
necessary "for conscience sake." Logical enough, since if you
believe these verses, God put them in place: "The powers
that be are ordained of God." Disputing them thus means doing
the same to him.
> "we ought to obey God rather than men," said Peter when
> he'd been ordered by lawful authorities to quit preaching
> the Gospel. Now, not all things are of equal importance.
> The Gospel is first
> But there is plenty of "God is no respecter of persons"
> (rank, social distinctions of any kind, to validate abuse
> by some double standard) and be kind to your underlings
> that renders most of the stuff that people who fight against
> traditional societies and tyrannical governments are
> concerned about, definite sins.
Agreed. The NT covers a range from right-of-Genghis-Khan
to bomb-throwing anarchism.
> And as such, proper objects
> of repression by governments that have become at least
> somewhat Christian.
> Failure to do so is not the issue.
The original issue was the failure of Orthodox leaders to
repent for the Church's collaboration with the authorities.
But if they're not going to stop, their repentance wouldn't be
very meaningful.
> There have been anarchistic sounding denunciations of
> abuses and pretensions by crowned heads and rich people
> by Christian writers from early times, i.e., Orthodox. And
> Ivan the Terrible killed a monk or priest who denounced him
> to his face for his abuses of the people, and the victim was
> made a saint of some sort, if I remember correctly.
Could be. I've been careful to leave room for individual
exceptions.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> The most interesting theorist of this new model
> of economic development is Sergei Karaganov.
Interesting factoid about Karaganov from wikipedia:
"Karaganov is the only intellectual from the former
Soviet Union listed in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll,
and only one of four, with Pavol Demeš, Václav Havel
and Slavoj Žižek, from Eastern Europe."
Arindam Banerjee
> On 20 touko, 00:29, ++ <fri...@spambot.com> wrote:
>
> > Marko Amnell wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >"According to Transparency International, the only
> > >country with higher income per capita and more
> > >corruption than Russia is Equatorial Guinea. That is
> > >hardly a standard worthy of a great nation."
>
> > >http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/362262.htm
>
> > >Still no evidence? Well, why don't you contact
> > >Transparency International and ask them how
> > >they arrived at that conclusion.
>
> > And you are assuming that people here aren't familiar with Transparency
> > International...
>
> Let's get back to my initial disagreement with you.
> You said that Russia is a Western country. That
> is what I disagreed with. The high level of corruption
> is just one indication that Russia is not a Western
> country.
If pollution, dehumanisation, bigotry, wiping out wildlife, etc. are
measures of corruption, then all Western countries are not Western.
++
If a poster writes something and then you seem incapable of reading what
is written, don't expect responses to malinterpretations. I personally
think that your only recourse to further malinterpretations, insults and
inability to converse is for you and the "catawumpus" to converse with
one another.
Patok
Hey, Galina, is that you? Still round DC?
--
"Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."
Steve Hayes
<marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Let's get back to my initial disagreement with you.
>You said that Russia is a Western country. That
>is what I disagreed with. The high level of corruption
>is just one indication that Russia is not a Western
>country. It's not even the most fundamental reason.
>The fundamental reason is that Russia has
>developed a new model of economic development.
>This is an interesting turn of events in world
>history. Among other things, it disproves Francis
>Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history."
>The most interesting theorist of this new model
>of economic development is Sergei Karaganov.
Levels of corruption as an indicator of "Westernness" seems a very odd
indicator indeed. I suppose it depends how you define "Westernness". I think
Huntington's model makes more sense than Fujuyama's.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Marko Amnell
> Dear Marko,
>
> If a poster writes something and then you seem incapable of reading what
> is written, don't expect responses to malinterpretations. I personally
> think that your only recourse to further malinterpretations, insults and
> inability to converse is for you and the "catawumpus" to converse with
> one another.
In other words, you have no arguments to back up your claims.
It seems you are the one here making unsupported
"blanket statements".
As an aside, I'll note that you constantly pester other people
to provide credentials (on Usenet!) while posting from an
anonymous account. How droll.
Marko Amnell
Dehumanisation? Ah yes, the West is uniquely
dehumanising, compared to other civilizations,
especially the pure ancient Indian civilization
except when it was later weakened by Buddhism,
etc, according to you usual mantra.
I forgot to mention that the West has foisted the
false equation E=mc^2 on us (oops E=mcc).
ObBook. _Occidentalism: A Short History of
Anti-Westernism_, by Ian Buruma and
Avishai Margalit
Marko Amnell
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 23:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Marko Amnell
>
> >Let's get back to my initial disagreement with you.
> >You said that Russia is a Western country. That
> >is what I disagreed with. The high level of corruption
> >is just one indication that Russia is not a Western
> >country. It's not even the most fundamental reason.
> >The fundamental reason is that Russia has
> >developed a new model of economic development.
> >This is an interesting turn of events in world
> >history. Among other things, it disproves Francis
> >Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history."
> >The most interesting theorist of this new model
> >of economic development is Sergei Karaganov.
>
> Levels of corruption as an indicator of "Westernness" seems a very odd
> indicator indeed. I suppose it depends how you define "Westernness". I think
> Huntington's model makes more sense than Fujuyama's.
Well, when certain Eastern European countries apply for
membership of the EU, for example, they are
sometimes criticized for their high levels of corruption
which are seen to exclude them from this particular
Western club. Certain legal standards (and the
enforcement of those standards) seem to be a part
of the idea of the civilized West.
Arindam Banerjee
Actually I was making TS Eliot's point.
> I forgot to mention that the West has foisted the
> false equation E=mc^2 on us (oops E=mcc).
Indeed.
>
> ObBook. _Occidentalism: A Short History of
> Anti-Westernism_, by Ian Buruma and
> Avishai Margalit- Hide quoted text -
++
Patok wrote:
> ++ wrote:
>
> Hey, Galina, is that you? Still round DC?
Yep, a ti?
Steve Hayes
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or
values or religion (to which few members of other
civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in
applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this
fact; non-Westerners never do" (Huntington 1998:51).
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Steve Hayes
Marko Amnell
"Whatever happens, we have got
the Maxim gun and they have not."
-- Hilaire Belloc, The Modern Traveller (1898)
Marko Amnell
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 02:30:47 -0700 (PDT), Marko Amnell
>
> >On 20 touko, 09:42, Marko Amnell <marko_amn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The most interesting theorist of this new model
> >> of economic development is Sergei Karaganov.
>
> >Interesting factoid about Karaganov from wikipedia:
>
> >"Karaganov is the only intellectual from the former
> >Soviet Union listed in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll,
> >and only one of four, with Pavol Demeš, Václav Havel
> >and Slavoj Žižek, from Eastern Europe."
>
> Factoid?
>
> Does that mean it isn't true?
Fair question. The original meaning of "factoid" was:
"A factoid is a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "fact"
intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate
public opinion. It appears in the Oxford English Dictionary[1] as
"something which becomes accepted as fact, although it may
not be true", "
I was, however, using the word in its other, journalistic
sense, namely:
"The word factoid is now sometimes also used to mean a small
piece of true but valueless or insignificant information, in contrast
to the original definition. This has been popularized by the CNN
Headline News TV channel, which, during the 1980s and 1990s,
used to frequently include such a fact under the heading "factoid"
during newscasts"
Source of the above quotes:
Patok
under my real name (patok is my nom de guerre in scb). Anyhow, we have
met there, I just wanted to make sure it's you - you haven't been there
in a long time. I wish you well; drop by scb when you get a chance. :)
Marko Amnell
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 23:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Marko Amnell
>
> >Let's get back to my initial disagreement with you.
> >You said that Russia is a Western country. That
> >is what I disagreed with. The high level of corruption
> >is just one indication that Russia is not a Western
> >country. It's not even the most fundamental reason.
> >The fundamental reason is that Russia has
> >developed a new model of economic development.
> >This is an interesting turn of events in world
> >history. Among other things, it disproves Francis
> >Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history."
> >The most interesting theorist of this new model
> >of economic development is Sergei Karaganov.
>
> Levels of corruption as an indicator of "Westernness" seems a very odd
> indicator indeed. I suppose it depends how you define "Westernness". I think
> Huntington's model makes more sense than Fujuyama's.
Fukuyama has now been proved wrong. The collapse of Communism
did not signal the beginning of an epoch during which
liberal democracy is the universal political system.
Huntington's model of competing civilizations does
make more sense. But Karaganov's ideas are more dynamic
than that. As he says, he is examining a new "path to modernity".
That phrase reminds one of Barrington Moore's
_Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy:
Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World_.
That is the context in which Karaganov should be read,
I think. He is looking at a new possible way for countries
to develop into modern societies, and, like Moore,
his analysis includes the whole planet.
++
Patok wrote:
> ++ wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Patok wrote:
>>
>>> ++ wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, Galina, is that you? Still round DC?
>>
>>
>> Yep, a ti?
>>
> Yeah, similarly. This was a big mistake - I should have posted
> under my real name (patok is my nom de guerre in scb). Anyhow, we have
> met there, I just wanted to make sure it's you - you haven't been
> there in a long time. I wish you well; drop by scb when you get a
> chance. :)
When you post under real names these days, you get hundreds of spam
mails in the inbox. So I understand. Every few months, I go into scb
for a day but the same five people are posting. If there are any decent
discussions, let me know
Steve Hayes
I understand it in the first sense.
I believe it was coined by Norman Mailer to describe something that resembles
a fact but isn't, but comes to be believed by large numbers of people because
of constant repetition in the media.
Perhaps the media are changing the meaning to take revenge on Mailer for the
perceived slur.
But I think giving words contradictory meanisns destroys communication.
Bloke on talk radio was saying the other day that he absolutely condoned the
despicable xenophobic attacks on innocent foreigners.
Steve Hayes
What about postmodernity?
++
lifelong Orthodox Christian suffering under communism to remember her
death with a facile discussion of anything in which she was not herself
interested like latter day successors of Marxist structuralism .
Steve Hayes wrote:
>What about postmodernity?
>
>
>
>
Steve Hayes
>Christian writer jailed for her beliefs by the Soviet
>authorities
Zoya Krakhmalnikova: Exiled Russian Orthodox writer
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Zoya Krakhmalnikova may have looked grandmotherly in her
later years, her distinctive white hair making her easily
identifiable at events in Moscow intellectual circles, but
she was quietly determined in defending what she believed
was right.
A convert in her early forties to Russian Orthodoxy, she
went on to produce, by hand, an admired anthology of
Orthodox spiritual writing that led to her work being banned
from publication in the Soviet Union, and to a spell in
prison. Freed from her sentence in July 1987 under Mikhail
Gorbachev, she thought, spoke and wrote about the Russian
Orthodox Church, chiding it for failing to break free of its
Soviet heritage of submission and caution and failing to
denounce nationalism and anti-Semitism.
Krakhmalnikova was born in the Ukrainian city of Kharkov in
1929. Her parents split up soon after her birth, and she was
initially brought up by her father. But on his arrest in
1936 she was passed over to her mother. Despite her father's
arrest, she was able to study at the prestigious Gorky
Institute in Moscow, and graduated in 1954. She then worked
in publishing, including at Molodaya Gvardiya and
Literaturnaya Gazeta, and her literary criticism was
published by leading journals and newspapers, including the
famous Novy Mir. In 1967 she gained her doctorate on the
Estonian writer Aadu Hint, an interesting choice for a
Russian-speaking critic.
She converted to Orthodoxy and was baptised in 1971 by the
dissident Moscow priest Fr Dmitri Dudko. Three years later,
she was sacked from her job for writing samizdat articles on
the revival of Orthodoxy in Brezhnev's Russia, some of which
were republished in émigré journals. Krakhmalnikova was
determined to bring Orthodoxy back into Russian culture at a
time when Soviet atheism, materialism and persecution left
no room for religion in the public sphere. She devoted her
main energy to Nadezhda ("Hope"), a typewritten journal she
founded in 1976 and circulated clandestinely. Unlike other
samizdat editors, she boldly put her name to each issue.
The wide-ranging journal - which eschewed politics -
included works by the church fathers, testimonies by
bishops, priests and other Orthodox victims of the Soviet
regime, pastoral addresses by the likes of Fr Dudko and some
of her own writings. Krakhmalnikova managed to produce 10
issues - which were soon republished abroad - before the KGB
swooped. She was arrested in August 1982 at the family dacha
near Moscow, in front of her daughter and baby grandson. She
was held in Moscow's Lefortovo prison, where the KGB sent a
journalist in an unsuccessful bid to get her to incriminate
herself. She was sentenced the following April on charges of
"anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda" to one year's
imprisonment, followed by five years' internal exile.
"The persecutors of Christian reading material have their
own publishing houses, newspapers, television and radio
stations - all means of producing countless quantities of
atheist propaganda, full of hatred towards God and his
believers," she mused. "How could the modest issues of
Nadezhda produced in a tiny print-run possibly do them any
harm?"
Having survived prison, Krakhmalnikova was sent into exile
in the remote Altai region close to the border with China
and Mongolia. Her husband, Feliks Svetov, was arrested in
1985 for his samizdat writings and was exiled to the same
area. Both were eventually freed amid Mikhail Gorbachev's
reforms, although they were among only a handful of
prisoners of conscience who refused to write appeals for
clemency. Sadly, their marriage did not long survive their
return to Moscow.
Back in the capital, Krakhmalnikova threw herself into
public debates on the role of the Church in the much freer
atmosphere under Gorbachev and then Boris Yeltsin. She
condemned Orthodox bishops who refused to confess their
guilt for collaborating with the KGB.
Krakhmalnikova wrote several novels and books of memoirs of
her imprisonment. She also edited a collection of articles
in 1994 on anti-Semitism in Russia, a growing problem as the
country went through a search for new certainties and often
turned its back on the values she held dear.
Felix Corley
Zoya Aleksandrovna Krakhmalnikova, writer and dissident:
born Kharkov, Ukraine 14 January 1929; married Feliks Svetov
(marriage dissolved, died 2002; one daughter); died Moscow
17 April 2008.