[Rich]

Poverty seems to breed a lot of desperation, which creates the conditions for people to want to commit crime. Many people will do a lot of less-than-ethical things to feed their families.

To some extent, but absolute poverty is a lot less determining of criminality than people think. Inequality matters, but also the perceived legitimacy of the rule systems. Multi culturalism is the breeding ground for criminality. If poor communities perceive themselves to be of a different culture to richer communities, they will be much more prone to criminality. The police, judiciary and legal system will be perceived as an alien intrusion not fair imparters of justice. We can get this effect even when rich and poor communities are of the same nationality and religion. They may speak the same language but with strong differences in dialect.

For thousands of years rich and poor lived in apartheid systems. Rich and poor often perceived themselves to be of different races. This separation of the classes was strongest in urban settings and much weaker in rural settings, where rich and poor would have greater personal interaction. Hence rural communities tend towards conservatism.

[Rancid]

I guess the wealthier or stronger nations can afford the luxury. Others are less able to.

I think this would need more study to really understand any sort of correlations around wealth or other things. It's likely a factor of many different things.

That said, yes, it does peak the ears to notice that the nations that are arguably the most rule following and most individualistic (low context also means stronger sense of individualism) have created some of the largest empires in modern history. My unprofessional guess is it has to do with this individualist aspect in combination with a more strict rule following culture. I also bet that as an empire grows, this style of culture self re-enforces, which allows the empire to grow more. I wonder if there is also a divide around time period in human history and development. That is, I wonder if in pre-industrial times (or pre some level of tech anyway), when most of the world was agrarian, did that perhaps favor high context cultures more? Maybe that is why early empires were in areas that today, are generally higher in context.... Who knows, there are so many things at play here. Cultures are not static either, so hard to really say. Fun to think about though.

Again... just my wild speculation.

This is for the professionals to study.

[late]

Multi culturalism is the breeding ground for criminality.

If poor communities perceive themselves to be of a different culture to richer communities, they will be much more prone to criminality. The police, judiciary and legal system will be percieived as an alien intrusion not fair imparters of justice. We can get this effect even when rich and poor communities are of the same nationality and religion. They my speak the same language but with strong differences in dialect.

For thousands of years rich and poor lived in apartheid systems. Rich and poor often perceived themselves to be of different races. This separation of the classes was strongest in urban settings and much weaker in rural settings, where rich and poor would have greater personal interaction. Hence rural communities tend towards conservatism.

"Specifically, regular face-to-face interactions between different racial groups can help to reduce prejudice on diverse others, which in turn facilitates social ties, trust, and cohesion among residents across the group boundaries. Therefore, more diverse communities may mean lower levels of crime in neighborhoods."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2022/04/01/racially-diverse-neighborhoods-in-diverse-areas-are-linked-to-lower-crime-rates/

Your second paragraph talks about isolation, not diversity.

When nearly everyone walked to work (meaning before the car) there was often less income segregation in cities. This has a lot to do with income inequality:

"These increases are related to the long-term rise in income inequality, which has led to a shrinkage in the share of neighborhoods across the United States that are predominantly middle class or mixed income—to 76% in 2010, down from 85% in 1980—and a rise in the shares that are majority lower income (18% in 2010, up from 12% in 1980) and majority upper income (6% in 2010, up from 3% in 1980)."

The rapid growth of income inequality after 1980, combined with changes in housing (gentrification and apartments converted into much more expensive condos) resulted in some cities changing a lot more than other cities:



https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2012/08/01/the-rise-of-residential-segregation-by-income/

[KurtFF8]

The USSR did not have Rule of Law, not even close.

This is of course just false.

We sent an army of lawyers to Russia after the collapse, and one of the problems they had was that Rule of Law was utterly alien to the way they lived.

Still is..

Two problems with this. One: the US doesn't get to determine what the "rule of law" means. Of course US lawyer would be opposed to an alternative system not based on maintaining the power of wealthy capitalists. Who was the "army of lawyers" in the first place? What was their political agenda for traveling to Russia?

Also again you mentioned: after the collapse. This makes the opinion of that "army of lawyers" even less relevant.

[late]

This is of course just false.



Two problems with this. One: the US doesn't get to determine what the "rule of law" means. Of course US lawyer would be opposed to an alternative system not based on maintaining the power of wealthy capitalists. Who was the "army of lawyers" in the first place? What was their political agenda for traveling to Russia?

Also again you mentioned: after the collapse. This makes the opinion of that "army of lawyers" even less relevant.

What it means is that you don't know what Rule of Law is:

"The rule of law is a political ideal that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.[2][3] It is sometimes stated simply as "no one is above the law".[4] The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat. It refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.[5][6][7] The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopædia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

[Unthinking Majority]

I think this would need more study to really understand any sort of correlations around wealth or other things. It's likely a factor of many different things.

That said, yes, it does peak the ears to notice that the nations that are arguably the most rule following and most individualistic (low context also means stronger sense of individualism) have created some of the largest empires in modern history. My unprofessional guess is it has to do with this individualist aspect in combination with a more strict rule following culture. I also bet that as an empire grows, this style of culture self re-enforces, which allows the empire to grow more. I wonder if there is also a divide around time period in human history and development. That is, I wonder if in pre-industrial times (or pre some level of tech anyway), when most of the world was agrarian, did that perhaps favor high context cultures more? Maybe that is why early empires were in areas that today, are generally higher in context.... Who knows, there are so many things at play here. Cultures are not static either, so hard to really say. Fun to think about though.

Again... just my wild speculation.

This is for the professionals to study.

I think some of "rule following" can be cultural for sure. There are cultural elements around "respect" and "honor" and "honesty" and "obedience".

There is study in politics around institutions, democracy, and rule of law/crime etc. For poor countries, it's generally seen that the most important thing isn't so much democracy as is public order/rules, political stability, and having strong institutions to ensure these things. A strong dictator can ensure these things over a banana republic where crime and corruption is more rampant. So often a competent dictator > a weak democracy.

[KurtFF8]

What it means is that you don't know what Rule of Law is:

"The rule of law is a political ideal that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.[2][3] It is sometimes stated simply as "no one is above the law".[4] The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat. It refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.[5][6][7] The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopædia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

And the USSR had a constitution, court system, legislative system, extensive Party structure, local structures. The idea that only the West has some sort of "special rule of law" is laughable by even an elementary analysis not only of comparable systems but of the Western structures themselves.

[late]

And the USSR had a constitution, court system, legislative system, extensive Party structure, local structures. The idea that only the West has some sort of "special rule of law" is laughable by even an elementary analysis not only of comparable systems but of the Western structures themselves.

"Almost without exception, Russia languish-
es near the bottom of indexes that pur-
port to measure elements of the “rule of
law” in countries around the world. Assessing
the extent to which this contempt is deserved
depends on how rule of law is defined. As the
term has become part of the global political lexi-
con, its precise meaning has become increasingly
opaque. Even so, the principle that law should
apply in equal measure to everyone, irrespective
of wealth or political clout, is generally accepted
as the foundational principle of the rule of law.
By this standard, Russia falls short today. What
is worse, the continuing behavior of Russia’s
public officials, as well as deeply set attitudes
among ordinary Russians, offers little promise of
improvement any time soon.
Certainly Russia’s history provides little evi-
dence of commitment to a universalistic view of
law.
The Kremlin’s brazen disregard of legal nice-
ties whenever the law threatens to cramp its style
contributes to an “anything goes” legal culture
in Russia. Human rights activists and journal-
ists have been murdered with seeming impunity.
Business is riddled with corruption. To some
extent, of course, this is nothing new. Finding
creative ways to get around (oboiti) the law has
long been the norm in Russia. Indeed, it was a
critical coping mechanism in response to the
perennial shortages of the Soviet era."

https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/zgyzz/russian_style_rol.pdf

Putin has been using the war in Ukraine as an excuse to crack down harshly on anyone that disagrees with him..

[KurtFF8]

"Almost without exception, Russia languish-
es near the bottom of indexes that pur-
port to measure elements of the “rule of
law” in countries around the world. Assessing
the extent to which this contempt is deserved
depends on how rule of law is defined. As the
term has become part of the global political lexi-
con, its precise meaning has become increasingly
opaque. Even so, the principle that law should
apply in equal measure to everyone, irrespective
of wealth or political clout, is generally accepted
as the foundational principle of the rule of law.
By this standard, Russia falls short today. What
is worse, the continuing behavior of Russia’s
public officials, as well as deeply set attitudes
among ordinary Russians, offers little promise of
improvement any time soon.
Certainly Russia’s history provides little evi-
dence of commitment to a universalistic view of
law.
The Kremlin’s brazen disregard of legal nice-
ties whenever the law threatens to cramp its style
contributes to an “anything goes” legal culture
in Russia. Human rights activists and journal-
ists have been murdered with seeming impunity.
Business is riddled with corruption. To some
extent, of course, this is nothing new. Finding
creative ways to get around (oboiti) the law has
long been the norm in Russia. Indeed, it was a
critical coping mechanism in response to the
perennial shortages of the Soviet era."

https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/zgyzz/russian_style_rol.pdf

Putin has been using the war in Ukraine as an excuse to crack down harshly on anyone that disagrees with him..

Ah a Western academic source that at one point claims that the USSR wasn't good. Shocking!

But more importantly, this is a paper about post-Soviet Russia which is not relevant to our discussion whatsoever.

[late]

But more importantly, this is a paper about post-Soviet Russia which is not relevant to our discussion whatsoever.

"The weakness of civil society in Russia
does not augur well for the development of a more
robust rule of law."

In the 1980s, when we were debating about what to do with Russia, a few conservatives argued that because of it's history and culture, it would wind up with another strongman or dictator.

I disagreed, but they were right.

The weird thing is that Putin has been cracking down, killing people like Nevalny, and jailing hundreds more that disagree with him.

That isn't Rule of Law, it's the opposite of it, and it's obvious.

First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging..

[KurtFF8]

"The weakness of civil society in Russia
does not augur well for the development of a more
robust rule of law."

In the 1980s, when we were debating about what to do with Russia, a few conservatives argued that because of it's history and culture, it would wind up with another strongman or dictator.

I disagreed, but they were right.

The weird thing is that Putin has been cracking down, killing people like Nevalny, and jailing hundreds more that disagree with him.

That isn't Rule of Law, it's the opposite of it, and it's obvious.

First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging..

Again totally irrelevant to the conversation. I've been talking about the USSR. You're talking about the Russian Federation. Two different systems, two different eras.

[late]

Again totally irrelevant to the conversation. I've been talking about the USSR. You're talking about the Russian Federation. Two different systems, two different eras.

Sorry, you failed so completely to defend that I thought you had given up.

I know one of the lawyers that went to Russia to try and build Rule of Law. It didn't go well.

Your assertion is total fantasy. If the KGB didn't like you, they put a bullet in the back of your head. If you look at the history, the idea that Russia had Rule of Law is insane.

The murder of nearly 2 million Kulaks is proof.

[KurtFF8]

I know one of the lawyers that went to Russia to try and build Rule of Law. It didn't go well.

What one American lawyer who you know who went to Russia post-USSR said is not really all that important. Right wing Americans never thought that an alternative system to capitalism could be legitimate.

The murder of nearly 2 million Kulaks is proof.

As you defend the country literally founded on slavery and the genocide of indigenous people. By your own standards, the USA had no "rule of law" either of course.

[late]

What one American lawyer who you know who went to Russia post-USSR said is not really all that important. Right wing Americans never thought that an alternative system to capitalism could be legitimate.



As you defend the country literally founded on slavery and the genocide of indigenous people. By your own standards, the USA had no "rule of law" either of course.

He's not Right, he has no interest in politics. Thing of it is, he was there. He was a lawyer for the Justice Dept, and understands Rule of Law intimately.

Now you are doing Whataboutism... We abolished slavery, and at great cost. We have Rule of Law, Russia does not.

The WJP says the USA is 26th, and Russia is 113th. We clearly need to do better, but...

https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global

[KurtFF8]

He was a lawyer for the Justice Dept, and understands Rule of Law intimately.

The idea that a lawyer from the Judstice Department would have the objective take on a state that the USA tried to destroy is absurd.

Now you are doing Whataboutism... We abolished slavery, and at great cost. We have Rule of Law, Russia does not.

It's not whataboutism whatsoever. It's literally applying your logic to the USA. You claimed that violence against Kulaks was an example about how there was no "rule of law" in the USSR. Yet if we examine the violence against indigenous people by the government of the USA, which you notably ignored, that was also often even a violation of US law: that's somehow the shining example of the "rule of law"?

And yes abolishing slavery was at great cost. More of a counter example to your point than anything though.

The WJP says the USA is 26th, and Russia is 113th. We clearly need to do better, but...

https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global

[/quote]

Not relevant to the discussion on the USSR. Stop trying to equate the USSR to the Russian Federation. They are not the same entity.

Also

WJP was founded by William H. Neukom and William C. Hubbard in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association and with the support of 21 partners

So the idea that the WJP is some authority on the subject can of course be immediately dismissed.

[late]

The idea that a lawyer from the Justice Department would have the objective take on a state that the USA tried to destroy is absurd.



It's not whataboutism whatsoever. It's literally applying your logic to the USA. You claimed that violence against Kulaks was an example about how there was no "rule of law" in the USSR. Yet if we examine the violence against indigenous people by the government of the USA, which you notably ignored, that was also often even a violation of US law: that's somehow the shining example of the "rule of law"?

And yes abolishing slavery was at great cost. More of a counter example to your point than anything though.

Not relevant to the discussion on the USSR. Stop trying to equate the USSR to the Russian Federation. They are not the same entity.

Also


So the idea that the WJP is some authority on the subject can of course be immediately dismissed.

[/quote]

We had the ability to destroy the USSR for a long time. We had nukes at the end of WW2, it wasn't until the 1960s that Russia was able to reach us with nukes, and the late Sixties at that.

We didn't want to destroy Russia, we wanted to contain it. That is well documented.

After the USSR collapsed, it was in our interest for it to develop, to become a modern nation with Rule of Law.

In this case, one can say you have Rule of Law, or you don't. What we have is flawed, but there is clearly work going on to maintain Rule of Law. Russia, just as clearly, has never had it.

You are desperately lunging for excuses, it's not going to work.

[KurtFF8]

We had the ability to destroy the USSR for a long time. We had nukes at the end of WW2, it wasn't until the 1960s that Russia was able to reach us with nukes, and the late Sixties at that.

We didn't want to destroy Russia, we wanted to contain it. That is well documented.

Now you're just engaging in a strange alternate history. The US literally had troops on the ground to prevent the Bolsheviks from coming to power. With the exception of WWII alone, the US and the USSR had an antagonistic relationship and the USA always wanted the USSR and socialism to go away.

After the USSR collapsed, it was in our interest for it to develop, to become a modern nation with Rule of Law.

The USA wanted Russia to become capitalist and integrate their markets to the West. That was the interest. The idea that this specific version of the "rule of law" was the focus of the US ruling class is absurd.

In this case, one can say you have Rule of Law, or you don't. What we have is flawed, but there is clearly work going on to maintain Rule of Law. Russia, just as clearly, has never had it.

You are desperately lunging for excuses, it's not going to work.

What excuses do you think I'm making exactly? It seems you're really interested in what some rich American lawyers think counts as the "rule of law" here. And you're rewriting history here to try to fit that narrative.

[Rugoz]

Wait what? The USSR had the rule of law under Stalin?

[KurtFF8]

Wait what? The USSR had the rule of law under Stalin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Cons ... viet_Union

[Rugoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union

Is this a sad joke?

Stalin murdered whoever he perceived as a slight threat to his one-man rule.