Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Russian 'Day of Anger' Rallies Tests Putin's Rule
MOSCOW - Thousands of protesters rallied in dozens of Russian cities on Saturday against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's government as opposition groups mobilised anger over economic woes.
Protesters reacts, during a anti-government rally in St. Petersburg, Russia, Saturday, March 20, 2010. Thousands of protesters rallied Saturday in several cities across Russia to protest the government's economic policy and demand more political freedoms.
(Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky) Riot police in Moscow massively outnumbered some 100 activists who took to the streets for an unsanctioned rally. They detained a few dozen activists and blocked the street to prevent demonstrators from marching.
"Today our movement is in solidarity with the other protests in the country where they are calling for the resignation of Putin's government. His policy during the crisis is not working!" youth activist Sergei Udaltsov told reporters shortly before being arrested.
Police also detained a handful of activists in the Russian cities of Arkhangelsk and Novosibirsk, news agencies reported.
Dubbed the "Day of Anger", the nationwide rallies are being organized by a mishmash of groups -- rights activists, the Communist Party, the opposition Solidarity movement and the Federation of Motorists -- in a bid to transform scattered discontent into something bigger.
The string of protests opened in the far east port of Vladivostok where more than a thousand protesters gathered in the snow holding placards screaming "No to Taxes" and "Enough Coddling Oligarchs at the Expense of the People!".
In Saint Petersburg, around 1,000 protesters cheered a list of demands ranging from the government's resignation to lower prices on municipal services.
"If there are no changes in Russian leadership in the near future, then our country will cease to be.
"It will collapse from corruption and bad domestic politics," Vadim Alexandrov, 43, told AFP at the Saint Petersburg rally.
Protests in Irkutsk meanwhile drew some 500 environmental activists angry at Putin's approval of the reopening of a paper mill, which is to dump waste into Lake Baikal, the world's deepest fresh water body.
Defying a ban on demonstrations in Russia's western-most city, some 500 activist wearing surgical masks held a silent protest in Kaliningrad.
The opposition has gained momentum mainly over bread-and-butter issues after the global downturn brought short a decade of growth in Russia, with recent local elections showing an ebb in support for the ruling United Russia party.
Many protesters said they were galvanized over a hike on car owners' taxes and unhappy over the government's anti-crisis policies.
"I came because I'm worried about the rising prices of electricity and gas; I have a small pension and I have to live somehow," 72-year-old Ivan, who gave only his first name, told AFP.
Authorities have used a variety of tactics to stem the protests. The opposition group Solidarity said its website hosting forums on the planned rallies was shut down Saturday by police who deemed it extremist.
Last year, the government pumped billions into supporting failing Soviet-era industries in its regions, fearing that mass layoffs amid a more than eight percent contraction in growth could snowball into wider social unrest.
The Kremlin was caught off guard in January when around 10,000 people rallied in Kaliningrad calling for the resignation of Putin and the regional governor in the largest protest since the crisis first hit Russia in 2008.
21 Comments so far
Show AllThis is not my country so It helps me to see that modern protests anywhere today seem to be more useful for the state to gauge public anger and thereby the strength of the opposition against the force of the state, than a strong message for change.
Just like here in the USA, the call to "Take to the streets!" 99 times out of 100 or more seem to show how weak the opposition is and how strong the state is.
Right now the angry right is showing the public what it would be like to put them in charge while the angry left is jealous and wants to get people to go out and join the circus and show the viewing public how they would look if the angry left was in charge.... What the public sees is angry mobs with hundreds of identical slick signs that they have seen before, with chaos, shouting and cops beating folks.... The picture is almost always ugly and almost always gives the State the upper hand with dissent by showing in general how psychically weak dissent is.
I think in most cases it is better to let the anger build and let the state guess at the strength of the opposition rather than have them dismiss it as an advantage to show who is in power and why.... to control mobs which demonstrations usually are portrayed in the major media.
I do not like this ugly truth but that is how I see it.
I know I am being out of the box of organized radical thought here, but I am too old to go along with the old answer to every clash of peoples interest to "Take it to the streets"
There has got to be a better way to get screwed than this.
Angry Old Man
"it is better to let the anger build."
I think in the USA, it would be better to have a day of anger management. I can't help feeling that the government is allowed to get away with so much bad stuff because it is a way to project the people's own anger by proxy. But then, I'm not a psychologist.
Somebody is gonna make a fortune off that... Anger Management Day! Brought to you by the American Psycological and Drug Association.
remember you heard it here first and 4thefuture
I remember before the Iraq invasion when I joined a group of Leftists, Independents, and Traditional Conservatives to organize protests. When I suggested we should all dress conservatively and march in ranks as an orderly and quiet group, the Lefties howled. I tried to explain to them that a motley mob was never going to impress the people who stood by and watched, but got nowhere... as did the protest marches. You just can't get throught to those guys - they want to look like homeless nut-jobs and then expect the rest of the people to treat their opinions with respect - what a joke. Protesters need to wise up about how they present themselves in public if they want to be taken seriously. I'd advise dressing as you would to go to church, for instance, or to a business meeting - VERY conservatively !!!
First impressions really do make a difference - and orderly ranks of well-dressed serious people WILL be taken seriously. (And the goon-squads are less likely to attack you if you look civilized and business-like.)
You must have been reading Alinsky: "Never go outside the experience of your people and those uncommitted whom you want on your side. Go outside the experience only of your *opponents*: you want *them*, not your people or prospective allies, to feel disoriented and unsure of themselves." <--(from memory, so no doubt paraphrased)
Распустить Путина! Путин вниз!
The headline is missleading.I don't think these rallies in any way "test Putin's rule." It is interesting, though, that they have been allowed to take place without much in the way of a crackdown.Putin is still very popular in Russia-his approval ratings would be the envy of any US politician, let alone Obama.But that's comparing apples and oranges-there is no parallel.Even some of the Russians I know who don't like Putin can't imagine any one else as an alternative.So, yes, "dump Putin, Down with Putin," but who or what do they have in mind succeed him? The current protest is meaningless, and has no legs.
I genuinely wonder how long it'll take for the penny to drop for the Russian people that they have Mikhail Sergeevich to thank for their freedom (such as it is) and El'tsin and his US-propaganda support for their crime rate and Capitalist disparities.
Gorbachev, in his way, was trying to reform and modernize the Soviet Union, not bring it down.His failure led to the collapse, and for that he is reviled-and it also led to Yeltsin, that pathetic vodka-ridden American puppet, who presided over the dismantling of the Soviet Union, and the wholesale robbery of the people's assets by American economic 'advisors' and home grown opportunists.Yelstin was the perfect man for the job-so perfect, that they sent over surgeons twice to rebuild his heart when (as many hoped), there was a good chance that the idiot would die.Putin is a huge improvement over that jerk-and US influence over Russia is pretty much in the toilet, which is a good thing.Like Frank Sinatra, the Russians are going to "do it my way", and there isn't a whole lot the US can do about that.But Gorbachev (to me at least) is a tragic figure.
I haven't read Alinsky and my cyrillic is awful - what exactly did you mean? I live in a conservative (college) town and when I talk to conservatives, I know what they say about 'those crazy liberal bums' - my father always told us that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans' - that was my point. If we are going to convince the average conservative person to join us, we must appeal to their sense of order - they don't like unruly mobs (few people do) and easily dismiss 'protesters' (on emotional grounds) simply by the way the dress and march. The world may not be the way I'd like it to be, but it is all I have to work with - so I try to present my argument under the best possible conditions so listeners react to what I say instead of how I look. (I did manage to talk to some conservative students and get them to consider an alternative perspective - they'd swallowed the government propaganda lock, stock, and barrel - and were dumb-struck that a fellow-conservative would challenge them, but were very eager to learn more.)
It means Dump Putin, down with Putin.I have to say that during the Civil Rights era, well dressed black demonstrators did create a favorable impression, even if it didn't always prevent them from getting hosed down by fire trucks and attacked by police dogs.The overall impression, however, was of orderly, self-respecting people being attacked by racist idiots.Put even more simply, the black demonstrators looked good: the police did not.A very powerful message was being sent on the evening news.
RH already translated the Russian, which wasn't really important (I don't fancy Putin for broadly the same reasons I didn't fancy Bush One quite apart from his behavior: ex-heads of the KGB/CIA/etc should never be allowed near elected office).
But your urging "present a conservative image" was exactly the advice Alinsky would have given and did give, and for the reasons you and RH articulated.
The most effective radicals are those who seem the most conservative, conventional, and "normal" on the surface. It disarms suspicion. "If even *they* are saying we're in the shite...." Which is why, whenever I've handed out political flyers on a street corner, I've always worn at least a skirt, blazer, and touch of makeup, even if also comfortable shoes and my hair in a twist. The trappings of respectability keep people from instantly raising their mental drawbridges.
sometimes though, i wonder if appealing to "their sense of order" is any longer warranted. conservatives , imo, are conservatives BECAUSE their sense of order can not tolerate change or progress...and to them any "left" perceived is extremely "disorderly" .
I think that - however one can do it with conservatives - there is ultimately no real alternative...not to "appeal" but to actually SHOW them how DISASTROUS and cruel their "sense of order" really is and has been. and in fact show them THEY are the authors of THEIR own disasters when it finally reaches their own doors.
and STILL - they will deny it.
the saying goes sometimes:
(will substitute progress for "liberal")
a "conservative is someone who takes advantage of progress created by liberals or progressives -- LONG after it was shown -- but wants to RESERVE it for himself or herself".
i mean also-- it is hardly about how one "dresses" or presents one's viewpoints.
to be sure intelligent discourse is the desire to progress well - and many ethical people have tried that -- but conservatives simply have chosen to DENY that kind of discourse knowing that if it was brought to its farthest possible conclusion -- CONSERVATISM will be shown to be like the Zombie Philosophy that it really is...always wanting to "conserve" for itself what it wishes to deny others...such as , among one of conservatism's most important concepts: "MY private property rights".
but as example:
while - at this point in history - one might say that "he failed" - Reverend Martin luther king jr's ideas, comments, observations and challenges, - for all HIS own "well-dressed , conservative , theologian leader" background and personality -- was NOTHING "conservative" at all - he CHALLENGED "conservative (traditional)"
thinking by the force of his ideas and convictions seeing a far future of equality, economic and civil justice for ALL - as far as he could reason out -
and -- the RESULT? he WAS KILLED by a CONSERVATIVE country.
but the point is - it was NOT his purpose to 'appeal' - it was his purpose to CHALLENGE the hypocrisy of what is inherently a conservative principle running in the veins of the nation and people.
he had to challenge it - because to "appeal" to it was just another form of "death"..because the nature of conservatism is
NOT to progress at all -= except to use material comforts to continue to advance and "conserve" ITS principles of "exclusion and division"..rather than the progressive or even "leftist" principles of "socialist" welfare for all.
Th slightly rumpled nerdy look is good too.We used to call it 'The William Burrough's Principle'- as in look straight, be weird.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
These rallies are pretty feeble in scale and Putin is popular with many younger Russians. But Obama is increasingly unpopular across the American political spectrum and we don't even have any consistent anti-Obama rallies of any size anywhere except for the illiterate Tea-Bagger bigots.
Putin being popular with younger Russians comes from the same place as Reagan's popularity among younger USAians: ignorance.
What happened? Not enough booze for the usual "Day of Vodka"?
Perhaps its time for American progressives to have some anti-Obama rallies for betraying those that got him in office.
Btw, as said earlier, dress conservatively and stay orderly. You want to gain credibility with the public, and that's done not by screaming, but by sounding calm, thoughtful, and with a persuasive voice.
I think it's great!
Theres so much various types of anger, a day to let it out. Prefferabily without the police dogs. I know in London they still maintain the place in park anyone can make anykind of speach.
I'm always for more free speach not less. It's always the quiet ones who seem to pull out automatic rifles at the most inconvienent times :) Of course thats also my rant againts politicly correct speach too. Again if you have to hold in or waste time rewording something it just adds to the stress and creates problems later. We have Earth Day, everybody except White Males gets a month.. Why not a Day of Anger?
Lol, so typical.
Protests happen in other countries, and it's all "OMG!! They is bringin' teh gov't to its knees!"
Protests happen over here, and the media ignores, misrepresents, and under-reports. The Iraq war brought the largest anti-war protests in history. but you don't hear much about that, do ya?
And you can dress as conservatively and act as orderly as you want. If there are five guys dressed hobos in a crowd of 30,000, guess who the cameras are going to focus on? And those guys will probably be agitating and cussing-out law enforcement, break a few windows, giving the cops a reason break it up and start arresting all the nice orderly people, and we will never here on the evening news that those five guys were paid off by the government to do exactly that.
Governments have evolved to tolerate and nullify public protest, to render impotent even the largest crowds. Resistance movements need to get more creative because this whole "get together and hold up signs thing" isn't working very well.
"Protests happen over here, and the media ignores, misrepresents, and under-reports. The Iraq war brought the largest anti-war protests in history. but you don't hear much about that, do ya?"
garlicfiend I was thinking the same thing as I read this.
hey- you're not afraid of vampires are you? just a friendly joke. There was a cartoon reprinted in "The Funny Times" some time ago that went: "In the beginning, God sauteed garlic..."
"Protests in Irkutsk meanwhile drew some 500 environmental activists angry at Putin's approval of the reopening of a paper mill, which is to dump waste into Lake Baikal, the world's deepest fresh water body."
A realization occured to me some time ago that has not been pointed out by anyone of note (so far as I know.)
It was during the height of the cold war in the 60's and 70's that this nation enacted some of the most progressive and environmentally responsible laws in our history: The Clean Water Act, The Clean Air Act, and The Surface Mine Reclamation Act. Meanwhile in an attempt to keep up with or surpass the economic and military output here the Soviets laid waste environmentally to much of their own country.
This is not to suggest that while we were enacting environmentally responsible legislation that there were not environmental crimes being perpetrated here either openly or behind our backs or in the darkness of night. But the fact remains that during our collosal global competition with the USSR for economic domination we still found the political will to propose, pass, and implement these laws.
Fast forward to 2010. As trumpeted by the PNAC the US "won" the cold war and we are the "sole remaining superpower," the only political will that now seems to exist is to gut every one of these progressive laws and turn this place into into a virtual wasteland (Drill baby, drill! and "Energy devolopment is too important to be hindered by unnecessary environmental regulations...")
I'm well aware of the socialist leanings of many on this site, but as we promote socialism as the only just and responsible organization of society and industry and labor we should keep this history in mind. We know see the same scenario playing out in the nominally socialist China as they race to surpass the US as the world's leading economic power. China is an environmental disaster only years or a decade from passing the point of no return.
There are those here that can post an explanation and expose (rebuttal)of what I've said, cogently and expertly, and I hope one or several will do just that. This is not a challenge but an invitation. The one thing that was driven home on my mind this weekend as I paraded through the streets of DC, that it is only socialists that correctly point out and resist the fundamental failings of our capitalist based democracy.