Kasparov Arrested

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Your idea of civilized discourse seems to have been dictated by a first form public school teacher. I can almost hear the tiresome drone of your hysterical, nasal voice indulging in shrill ad hominem at every opportunity.

I would be pleased to respond to material points, but you don't seem to have made any: you have merely indulged in puerile accus ...[text shortened]... r been satisfactorily explained, though there has been no shortage of speculation and rumor.)

It seems obvious that your idea of 'civilised discourse' is to indulge in childish personal insults. If I wanted to perfect my 'ad hominem', I'd certainly know who to approach, but I do not intend to stoop to your level of abuse.

I have made a number of serious 'material points' which you seem to have problems accepting. Serious accusations against Putin (including collusion in murder) have been made by many reputable organisations and are not just a figment of the imagination of the 'popular press'. You just don't seem to realise that people like Putin with his background might not see things in the way that an ordinary Western politician would. As far as Litvinenko was concerned, he might have been a discredited fantasist, but the fact is that to some in the Putin security apparatus, he had clearly betrayed the FSB (KGB successor organisation). Maybe an example had to be made 'to encourage the others'.

As for Kasparov, I made it clear that I'm not a particular admirer of his. He can be arrogant and overbearing. I also do not necessarily support his politics and all of the tactics he has used in pursuing them. That is not the point. The point is that Kasparov has, in my opinion, shown considerable personal courage in his stand and that it is to be hoped that others will follow suit in Russia, otherwise the future of democracy there is pretty grim.

Holy Mackrel....I need a dictionary just to understand some of the words used in these posts........

He was just released: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4291

Originally posted by Northern Lad
It seems obvious that your idea of 'civilised discourse' is to indulge in childish personal insults. . . . Serious accusations against Putin (including collusion in murder) have been made by many reputable organisations and are not just a figment of the imagination of the 'popular press'.

Dear me...what schoolyard witticisms can we expect next? "I know you are, but what am I?" Or perhaps "I'm rubber and you're glue -- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

Since you seem completely unable to recognize ad hominem when you write it, I'll be glad to point out the first instance of it in our exchange here: "What utter contemptible drivel you write." Unable to substantiate this, you then offered the following inane rhetorical: "So all the brave opponents of Putin whose lives finished in a hail of bullets (or worse) timed their own murders to discredit him?" When I objected to this on the basis that it was absurd and misrepresentational, you replied "Don't be so pathetic and childish."

As for serious accusations made against Putin, I daresay there have been. Some of them may even be true. So what? I have not at any time attempted to defend Vladimir Putin or his regime. In fact, I said that he was intolerant and could be ruthless. Again, what I actually said was that, first, Kasparov is a cynical political manipulator, not the martyred angel of light you (and others) seem predisposed to portray him as; and second, many of the high-profile deaths commonly represented as "political assassinations" orchestrated by the Putin government are likely nothing of the sort. If any "orchestration" ties them together (and that isn't always clear, in the case of journalists who have not only offended Putin but also Russian mobsters and Chechen warlords, not to mention oligarchs, corrupt police, and corrupt politicians other than Putin) then it seems likely to me that this is something planned by Putin's political enemies and not by Putin: and I say this advisely and without an ounce of personal or political sympathy for Vladimir Putin or his government.

Maybe if Putin agreed to step down at the end of his term and let his wife take over, everybody in the U.S. would think it wasn't a continuation of his term as a dictator.

"Politkovskaya had been criticizing Putin for years – to no avail, in practical, political terms. For example, this summer [2006, M.A.] – long after her book had been published – Putin played genial host to the G-8 leaders in yet another of their grandiose, meaningless confabs. They were glad to come wine and dine with Vlad, to grip and grin with him for cozy photos, to accord him all the respect due to the leader of a great power – i.e., one with nukes and oodles of oil. Politkovskaya's years of revelations about the depredations of his rule had obviously cut no ice with the great and good. Anyway, she was known mostly for writing about Chechnya; and to Bush, Blair and other leaders of the "developed" world, Chechnya is now considered just another front in the "war on terror," with Vlad fighting the good fight against 'worldwide Islamofascism' (or whatever the term of propaganda art is these days). If he has to play a little rough with those evildoers, well, that's just what a Commander-in-Chief has to do sometimes to defend national security, right?

"Given the West's tacit countenancing of atrocities in Chechnya, and its indifference to Politkovskaya's revelations – not to mention her increasing marginalization in the Kremlin-dominated Russian media itself – her life posed no real threat to Putin. But her death makes her a martyr, and is already dredging up some of her long-ignored attacks on his regime. And this comes at a time when Putin is making a major play to secure a prominent – if not dominant – role for Russia in Europe's energy market, as well as playing hardball in 'renegotiations' of deals with Western oil giants. Why make trouble for yourself by having the 'national conscience' bumped off in such a conspicuous way?"

quoted from:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd33.html

Incidentally, I do not subscribe to this blogger's politics or views in general. But I think he makes a relevant point in the quoted material, and makes it cogently.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Dear me...what schoolyard witticisms can we expect next? "I know you are, but what am I?" Or perhaps "I'm rubber and you're glue -- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

Since you seem completely unable to recognize ad hominem when you write it, I'll be glad to point out the first instance of it in our exchange here: "What utter cont unce of personal or political sympathy for Vladimir Putin or his government.

You continue to miss the point egregiously. I may have expressed myself strongly - I did believe the point you seemed to trying to make was contemptible - but I only criticised what you'd written, whereas you launched into a tirade of petty, offensive, and extremely childish personal abuse at my expense. (In fact you don't seem to be able to write anything coherent without including such gratuitous personal insults.) I leave readers of this thread to make their own judgment on this.

You claim not to be an apologist for the Putin regime. I do not think I can be blamed too much for reaching this conclusion when on the issue of Litvinenko and the murder of so many opposition figures you deploy exactly the same arguments that Putin apologists routinely use.

Let's just return to the facts and the original points I was trying to make. Democracy in Putin's Russia is under considerable threat, and the human rights situation there is deteriorating rapidly and has been for some time. So much is fact. You can find that out yourself from the sources I have quoted previously and from numerous other sources. These sources also make clear that almost all meaningful opposition to the Putin regime is being repressed; critics are being harrassed, intimidated, beaten up, arrested, convicted on trumped-up charges, confined to psychiatric wards, and in some cases murdered.

The point I am making is that irrespective of what one thinks of Kasparov's own politics (and they're probably quite a bit to the right of my own), he has in my opinion shown, in view of the situation outined above, considerable personal courage to immerse himself in oppostion politics in Russia at this time when he could have continued to play chess and make a very nice living for himself.

I think that most people would agree that, whatever one thinks of Kasparov, his is a very complex and fascinating personality. However, your level of intellect (such as it is) only permits you to sneer at him with cheap abuse (glad I'm not the only recipient!) such as "publicity-seeking political whore", "monkeyshines" and "insincere political hack".

Notwithstanding my doubts about certain aspects of his character and personality, I do personally believe that Kasparov has shown a degree of integrity and sincerity in taking on a struggle (at some personal risk) in which he has little or no chance of success or personal advancement for the foreseeable future. One should also recall that Kasparov was openly calling for democracy in Russia as long ago as the late eighties before the demise of the Soviet Union at a time when most leading Soviet GMs (taking their lead from golden boy Karpov) were only too happy to toe the party line that had served them so well.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
You continue to miss the point egregiously. I may have expressed myself strongly - I did believe the point you seemed to trying to make was contemptible - but I only criticised what you'd written, whereas you launched into a tirade of petty, offensive, and extremely childish personal abuse at my expense. (In fact you don't seem to be able to write anyt ...[text shortened]... boy Karpov) were only too happy to toe the party line that had served them so well.

Well said.

Kasparov and his efforts in the "country formerly known as Russia"
are useless.
He will accomplish nothing.
move on people.

Originally posted by Korch
Well said.

Thanks for your support. You may be interested to know that Mr Adkins doesn't appear to have a particularly high opinion of your country judging by http://www.thecopydude.com/?p=379#comment-7877
Mark Adkins seems to be a regular commentator and contributor to Marxist websites and discussion groups.

Originally posted by chessisvanity
Kasparov and his efforts in the "country formerly known as Russia"
are useless.
He will accomplish nothing.
move on people.

oh yeah, move on, and on the way, "kill whatever moving thing" you can. (Just a sweet daydream by chessisvanity)

pfft...hey everyone the non-subscriber is talking again

Originally posted by Northern Lad
Thanks for your support. You may be interested to know that Mr Adkins doesn't appear to have a particularly high opinion of your country judging by http://www.thecopydude.com/?p=379#comment-7877
Mark Adkins seems to be a regular commentator and contributor to Marxist websites and discussion groups.

Northern Lad, as a marxist, I'm nowhere near being an apologist for Putin -or any other --almost-- fascist leader for that matter-, but I think, criticising Gary Kasparov's political line -which I find very inconsistent- is something categorically different from justifying the politics of Putin and the capitalist relations of Russia.

One should be able to say both, with no fear of being inconsistent. and please, stop those arguments about Putin resembling the sovietic regime. they are, too, categorically different because of which relations of production they serve to.

(I feel sorry for my english -which is not my native language-, I may have not been able to make myself clear.)

and for the personal "discussions" you two have been making, you are not "categorically" different than your counterpart in that matter 🙂

just wanted to add: people may do crazy things that may put them on the line, put whatever they have, their whole life at stake, and every differenet person has different motivations for doing so. Kasparov has chosen to be on the streets instead of sitting back and enjoying his millions, but that does not mean he has to be the ultimate warrior for freedom just because he made some right choices. He made some right choices for getting out of that chess millionaire mood, but this does not prove anything on why he made those choices and the credibility of other choices he makes -like his political arguments-.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
You continue to miss the point egregiously. . . . You claim not to be an apologist for the Putin regime. I do not think I can be blamed too much for reaching this conclusion when on the issue of Litvinenko and the murder of so many opposition figures you deploy exactly the same arguments that Putin apologists routinely use. . . . [Kasparov] could have ...[text shortened]... from golden boy Karpov) were only too happy to toe the party line that had served them so well.

The only thing egregious here is your unparalleled hubris and fatuity in accusing others of your own faults.

I don't mind agreeing with "Putin apologists" (i.e., those who refuse to jump to jump on the Western media's bandwagon of trendy but ill-considered conclusions) when their opinions happen to overlap with my own. You don't seem to grasp the extent to which your conclusions are based on presumption and a variety of logical fallacies. It doesn't at all follow, either from Putin's authoritarianism or from the official intolerance of dissent now prevailing in Russia, that Putin (or any government Ministry acting on his behalf) authorized or instigated the murder of Politkovskaya or the death of Litvinenko, or any number of similar incidents. If you have proof to the contrary, please post it here. Better still, bring it to the attention of The Times -- I'm sure your painstaking research, providing a (hitherto elusive) solution to extensively scrutinized (but stubbornly inconclusive) mysteries, will be recognized and celebrated.

Getting back to Kasparov, so far as I am aware he was elected to the Central Committee of Komsomol in 1987 and remained a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union until 1990, when he saw which way the wind was turning. The fact that he quit chess after (in his own words) having no more goals to attain, and turned to the field of politics, needn't be interpreted as evidence of a pure soul. As for money, it needn't motivate those who already have a sufficiency of it: a desire for influence or power may. I might add that despite the obstacles since put in the way of his campaign, he did declare his candidacy for the office of the Russian presidency and his intent to run for that office in 2008 to replace Vladimir Putin -- an office which, directly or indirectly, is not without remuneration as well as power, influence, and notoriety.

The fact that he may hold some genuine desire for "democratic reforms" does not alter my view of his insincerity and deception in holding staged media events, then blaming his political rival for what he himself engineered (e.g., the "chessboard attack" incident). That was precisely the point at which I stopped regarding Gary Kasparov as a crusader for democracy and began regarding him as a cynical political manipulator. That Vladimir Putin is far worse doesn't change my opinion of Mr. Kasparov in this regard.