Why Russians Aren’t Greedy

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

...Winston asks another question: “Are there no property rights in Russian mentality? Does one not have the right to keep what belongs to them without being greedy?”<br>
No, Winston, there are not.

And there is a good reason for this. Money is a sin not just because some monk wandered up from Byzantium and said so. Possessions are cumbersome — and useless — because if it isn’t the raiding Tartar-Mongols that take them away, it will be the Czar, or the landlord that owns you, or the collectivizing Bolsheviks, or the NKVD, or the Oligarchs, or Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov.

And if all that fails, Old Man Vasya downstairs will fall asleep drunk without putting out his cigarette and all that money you hoarded under the mattress will go up in smoke.

So Russians, Winston, are not greedy. If they look at you funny for not wanting to splurge, it’s because they know something that you don’t: that money is filth. It only causes stress and distracts you from the Eternal.

And if I ask you to hand your filth over to me, I’m the one that’s doing you a favor.

France may make good wine, the United States is a whiz at economic policy, but Russians definitely kick butt at producing Eternal Questions.

- www.mosnews.com/feature/2004/10/15/greedy.shtml

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Don't forget, all Irish love to fight, Chinese can't drive, Italians are in the Mafia, Jews love money, Blacks are good at sports, and Polacks are stupid!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Don't forget, all Irish love to fight, Chinese can't drive, Italians are in the Mafia, Jews love money, Blacks are good at sports, and Polacks are stupid!

It seems that you didn't bother to read the full article and take into account its general tone and the source of its publication.

[Tattac]

There is a lot of truth in it. That's the way life is here

[Skilly]

Nice to see Mr.Bozo finally sees that Kovalev is not greedy, being Russian and all.

[Montrealer]

Interesting article, thanks Mr. B.

[blaise]

M. said:

...Winston asks another question: “Are there no property rights in Russian mentality? Does one not have the right to keep what belongs to them without being greedy?”<br>
No, Winston, there are not.

And there is a good reason for this. Money is a sin not just because some monk wandered up from Byzantium and said so. Possessions are cumbersome — and useless — because if it isn’t the raiding Tartar-Mongols that take them away, it will be the Czar, or the landlord that owns you, or the collectivizing Bolsheviks, or the NKVD, or the Oligarchs, or Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov.

And if all that fails, Old Man Vasya downstairs will fall asleep drunk without putting out his cigarette and all that money you hoarded under the mattress will go up in smoke.

So Russians, Winston, are not greedy. If they look at you funny for not wanting to splurge, it’s because they know something that you don’t: that money is filth. It only causes stress and distracts you from the Eternal.

And if I ask you to hand your filth over to me, I’m the one that’s doing you a favor.

France may make good wine, the United States is a whiz at economic policy, but Russians definitely kick butt at producing Eternal Questions.

- www.mosnews.com/feature/2004/10/15/greedy.shtml

You left out the boyars and the serf-owning aristocrats, who were not mere landlords. There was also outright slavery, a practice introduced by Peter the Great to get laborers for his grandiose construction projects. There was military conscription. There was a corrupt Orthodoxy. I could go on and on. But to say Russians aren't greedy? I could never agree with that.

By the way, have you heard the expression that originated in France, "Grattez le russe et verrez le tatare?"

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

You left out the...

Since I didn't write the article I could hardly have left anyone out.

To judge by your remarks you a) did not read the article in its entirety and/or b) missed its tone and meaning completely.

To quote Tattac: "There is a lot of truth in it. That's the way life is here."

[Tattac]

Blaise said:

But to say Russians aren't greedy? I could never agree with that.

It's a different kind of greed ;D

By the way, have you heard the expression that originated in France, "Grattez le russe et verrez le tatare?"

And? Do you want to say that tatars are greedy? Look at Ak Bars! Do you know how they live? They are all together supporting each other (financially too).
By the way, I didn't know this expression originated in France

[blaise]

M. said:

Since I didn't write the article I could hardly have left anyone out.

To judge by your remarks you a) did not read the article in its entirety and/or b) missed its tone and meaning completely.

To quote Tattac: "There is a lot of truth in it. That's the way life is here."

Some (not all) of the Russians I know are sufficiently venal to pass for North Americans or Europeans. And many of the Bolsheviks were as acquisitive as their predecessors.

Things are improving materially in the former Tsarist capital, Saint Petersburg, but civility is not.

The cobra pop-up irunning alongside the article almost hypnotized me.

[Tattac]

Blaise said:

And many of the Bolsheviks were as acquisitive as their predecessors.

Call it a greed of people who were poor and uneducated and finally got a chance to become rich. Though it's different story with their predecessors.

History is a very complicated subject if you take it seriously. You can't just mention oppressors of Russian people and say that they were and still are greedy. There has always been a huge gap between authorities and common folks here.

I still find the article true but maybe it's because I am Russian, grew up in Russia (both the Soviet and "new" times) and studied history for the most part in Russia.

Things are improving materially in the former Tsarist capital, Saint Petersburg, but civility is not.

Civility? You mean the western kind of civility, right?

By the way, I have always found it funny that the word "bolsheviks" is mostly used in Europe and NA. For some reason we don't use it as often as you guys do. I hear it like once a year from a Russian, usually on TV

[blaise]

I use Bolshevik to distinguish it from Communist because the Soviet Union never had Communism. Too bad Russia couldn't have had a government like the one that was just getting started under Kerensky (I'm amazed he lived out his life without being assassinated.) Even Trotsky would have been an improvement over Lenin.

[Tattac]

Blaise said:

Even Trotsky would have been an improvement over Lenin.

Maybe. But I think Lenin's NEP idea was not bad at all. But he died and Stalin brought in an absolutely different regime.

[blaise]

Tattac said:

Maybe. But I think Lenin's NEP idea was not bad at all. But he died and Stalin brought in an absolutely different regime.

Before I switched to my present profession I majored in world history at the university. That included Russian history. My study revealed how Lenin adopted the Tsarist secret police as his own and began to purge "enemies." The Russians I know consider Lenin to be as much a monster as Stalin. In fact, I know a few (and I'm not referring to White Russian emigrés) whose parents or grandparents suffered in the early 1920s. His death just a few years after he assumed power limited the damage attributed directly to him. His New Economic Policy was aimed at bringing Russia fully into the industrial age but the means he used were deplorable. Lenin was a clever, cynical, ruthless fellow. He stayed in Switzerland long enough for Trotsky to sign the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and then condemned Trotsky as having betrayed Mother Russia by ceding large chunks of territory to the Germans. He tried to prevent Poland from becoming independent. Unfortunately, Stalin won out over his less psychopathic rivals and lasted until 1953.

Oh well, enough of that. Let's return to hockey.

[Skilly]

Often I have found that what "study" reveals, and what actually happened from a first hand account of the event are not exactly the same thing.

Study in the USA reveals alot of countires getting liberated by the Americans. The fact is they never liberated every European country.

Speaking to many who fought in World War II will show a different account of many battles from what we can study.

I am not saying your studies are incorrect. You could be the best historian of all countries for all I know, but you realize you are preaching Russian history to a Russian, right? Ballsy.

[blaise]

Skilly said:

Often I have found that what "study" reveals, and what actually happened from a first hand account of the event are not exactly the same thing.

Study in the USA reveals alot of countires getting liberated by the Americans. The fact is they never liberated every European country.

Speaking to many who fought in World War II will show a different account of many battles from what we can study.

I am not saying your studies are incorrect. You could be the best historian of all countries for all I know, but you realize you are preaching Russian history to a Russian, right? Ballsy.

The Russians were fed revisionist bullSaperlipopette history of their own country for decades. Only recently have they gained access to the archives.

The Americans mistakenly think they won WW II against Germany in a relatively short campaign starting on June 6, 1944. The Russians did at huge cost, and the most important battle was Stalingrad, not the Normandy landings. The Americans actually won the war against Japan. The seminal event that shook the world and forever destabilized it was the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While MAD (mutual assured destruction) delayed the next nuclear event, there will be no safegfuards in the future. Am I depressed about it? Of course. My work and various diversions such as HabsRus help keep my mind off it but do not banish the concern.