DESIGUALDAD EN LOS INGRESOS,

Network provides a few compact ideological statements that form the base from which their products are built. These statements utilize blunt language to eliminate the possibility of nuanced undertones. The group’s leadership aligns it with Putin’s political goals such as the reinstatement of the Russian Federation as a world power and what can be considered “traditional” Russian societal and religious values. While its messages are concise in nature, Network does not include all of its beliefs in a single document. Its values are divided between its manifesto, principles, and “spiritual staples.” The manifesto is a metaphor which explains the injustice of young Russian admiration for a Western social and political lifestyle. The principles make clear the group’s stances on a handful of potentially controversial issues. Finally, the “spiritual staples” are a set of twelve unifying factors which display the facets of Russian national culture that Network believes are most valuable. These statements of purpose serve as both a valuable recruitment tool and a standard against which their visual products can be measured.

Manifesto

The “Father-Manifesto” (Отец-Манифест) is the most detailed piece that Network displays on its website. It leads its reader through a convoluted metaphor for the conflict over Russian young peoples’ loyalty between foreign influence and Russian national influence and leadership.114 The essay begins with the image of a family, whose father has worked as hard as

114 _{Russian material directly quoted in this study has first been roughly translated by the author and then edited by} Kirill Tolpygo, a fluent Russian-speaker and Librarian for Slavic and East European Studies, Global Studies, and Linguistics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

he could to provide modest dignity and prosperity for his ungrateful children. This father has given the best years of his life to ensure what security and quality of life he could during Russia’s difficult years in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s fall. It seems to the children, however, that what he gave them was not enough, and that he did not love them, so they begin to look at the life that their rich neighbor enjoys. The manifesto states: “And to [the children] it seems that their father was short on giving them attention and pretty presents, like those in the big, pretty house in the neighborhood.”115 _{The children try to become like that neighbor, and} even to ingratiate themselves with him, when they should instead be embracing the head start that their father gave them. They should make their own lives rather than wishing to have the lives of others. The manifesto states that this “adult” path, where the young generation builds its own life, is the right one, and that the “infantile” path of blaming the father for their problems and wishing for different circumstances is not a route to progress. The father is, of course, the Russian state, the children the young adults within Russia, and the rich neighbor the West (particularly the United States). It is a call not to abandon the ways and governments of the past, but to embrace its non-Western origins and go forward in their own way.116

The very nature of the father metaphor ties into the paternal image that Putin has fostered in his cult of personality. Although the Russian state as an entity is the one being portrayed as a father to the young post-Soviet generations, Putin is implicitly related to that figure in this metaphor because he is the leader of the often-mentioned Motherland. This way, he and the Russian state and people are tied as if in marriage. The manifesto ends with the assertions: “The image of Vladimir Putin unifies all the ideas of this manifesto, and this is not a secret or a covert

115 _{Сеть. "Отец-Манифест."} 116 _Ibid.

design. Each person who lives in Russia and possesses a heart can sense in him the support and inspiration for inner strength and determination.”117 _{Being one and the same with the}

government, Putin and his administration are implied to have been loving, striving to provide for the Russian people the security and reasonable quality of life they have needed since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russian citizens Network considers loyal would be hard pressed to deny their allegiance to such a figure or the struggles he undergone for their benefit. In this way the personal loyalty of each citizen who reads this manifesto is being held accountable for their own loyalty and personal degree of nationalism. Burke’s theme of emphasizing the individual arises to pull Network’s audience away from foreign influence using personal guilt and

accountability.118 Once reading this pronouncement against following in the West’s footsteps, Network’s audience would either agree with the sentiment, reconsider progressive Western political or social sentiments which they had been considering, or reject the argument and avoid the group’s further messages entirely. People who fall into the first and second categories are more likely to be loyal to the Russian state, to be recruited by Network, or at least to support the group’s endeavors. They may come to consider loyalty to the state and loyalty to Network to be the same thing, or become affiliated with Network and then loyal to the state out of guilt.

The manifesto also creates an aversion to cooperating with Western nations because of the implication that those nations will use the Russian people rather than strive to help them progress. Although the younger generations are chastised by the manifesto for being ungrateful, it also leaves room for a warning against falling into this trap. In the same way that Burke describes Hitler’s Mein Kampf as having its “Rome” and its “devil,” Network involves a

117 _{Сеть. "Отец-Манифест."}

religious component in its ideology by portraying the Russian government in a sacrificial or savior-like position.119 _{It attempts to save its children from the evils of the rest of the world and} the corruption that comes with participation in those sins, but also offers an escape from Western perdition. This salvation comes through making the choice to follow the path that the father began to lay out for his children during those first troubling post-Soviet days. It is a future separate from the West, and if the young generations of Russians embrace this path, they can learn to stand on their own legs and enjoy their own well-earned progress. 120 _{This approach can} be evaluated as religious as well because of its necessary adherence to principles presented by a higher body, which in this case is Network or the Russian government itself.

The presentation of a figurative path to salvation fulfills the manifesto’s main purpose: a call to action. If the audience takes from this piece what Network wishes it to, the reader will undergo a conversion which binds them to the Russian state with a sense of pride. When the reader has been thoroughly shamed into believing they have betrayed their native land and state, the promise is made to them of progress all their own, progress through which they can earn both pride and redemption. This is the hook for Network’s recruitment. Whatever creative talents the young person reading it may have can be put to use for the Russian nationalistic cause, which is made to seem a loftier purpose than keeping peace with neighboring states or working towards a more democratic government. Forgiveness for their disloyalty, for the directionless post-Soviet years, and for the constantly declining power of Russian regional and world influence can be achieved with loyalty and intellectual labor in service of the Kremlin.

119 _{Burke, “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle,’” 193.} 120 _{Сеть. "Отец-Манифест."}

Principles

Network supplements its manifesto with a set of “principles” that express their stances on political and social issues which can be considered controversial. These are titled the moral, religious, political, economic, and cultural principles. While they appear benign enough, each principle lays out an unforgiving nationalistic or conservative opinion. The straightforward manner in which they are presented and explained gives them a sense of reliability. Simplicity belies the use of these principles as a political tactic. Much like a politician running for office, stating the group’s motivations in a straightforward manner makes it appear more trustworthy as an entity. The audience reading these statements may then be more likely to take them to heart or at least less likely to question whether these are the true driving factors that the group wishes to advertise. If Network was created primarily to popularize the annexation of Crimea, then these simple and potentially polarizing statements may have been a quick attempt at building a sturdy foundation for a group whose cause needed to seem genuine.

The first of the five statements is the “Moral principle” (Нравственный принцип), a vaguely-titled opposition piece addressing same-sex marriage. It sports a veneer of both

tolerance and opposition for the sake of practicality, but generally expresses a blunt rejection of this “alternative” lifestyle. This principle frames same-sex marriage as a choice that should not be taught to future generations and goes so far as to label children of same-sex marriages as their own separate kind of child who is a “hostage of the same-sex choice of his parents.”121 _{This child} is not “free” and does not have equally masculine and feminine parts to their personality as a child of heterosexual marriages does. In conclusion, the group says that they do not mind men

living with men, women with women, or “dogs with robots,” but that marriages in these relationships are not supported.122

In the context of a politically biased group which supports the annexation of Crimea, this topic could be seen as irrelevant to the political goals of the Kremlin. However, themes such as this likely draw their influence from one of Nashi’s more outlandish features: popularizing reproduction. At some Nashi rallies, there were even booths where young people could get married.123 _{The strange principle can also be read as an attempt on the part of the Kremlin to} ostracize more liberal parties or audience members whose interests include social progress. Although conservative Russians might not be aligned with Putin for his own politics, they might be won over to a less democratic party if their social values are appealed to. Since Russian public sentiment still does not favor same-sex marriages, Network will gain the support of a larger demographic than they will lose by opposing the effects they allege such couples will have on future generations.

The “Religious principle” (Религиозный принцип) is a direct limitation on religions available to the Russian people. It claims that while the group does defend those religions which are so important in Russian society, there are only four that merit protection: Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. 124 _{Examples of other religions, such as Baptism (referred to as a} separate religion from Protestantism) and the cult of Cthulhu, are provided and denounced as having an effect on Russian culture which is not respectable. They are not to be accepted, respected, or defended, and Network makes it clear that they intend to do no such thing. Moving

122 _{Сеть. "Нравственный принцип.”}

123 _{Anselm Waldermann. "The Nashi Movement: Russian Youth and the Putin Cult." Spiegel Online. Accessed}

November 13, 2017. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-nashi-movement-russian-youth-and-the-putin- cult-a-514891-2.html.

Together and Nashi were not as heavily focused on specific religions as they were the restoration of, and strength drawn from, true Russian culture as they saw it. For Network, this principle likely follows the moral principle in an effort to attract a more conservative-leaning crowd. Network also outlines the reasoning for its stances and attempts to convey their messages with lighthearted and youthful witticisms, but these are clumsily done. The joking language of the religious and the moral principles suggests a desperate effort to appeal to Russian youth while maintaining heavily traditional values.

The “Political principle” (Политический принцип) describes dogged loyalty to Putin. The text uses polarizing language to place the Russian government and its goals against the rest of the world, stating: “It’s simple. We are for Putin. To support the Russian government means to oppose world government. To oppose Anglo-Saxon steering of the contemporary world.”125 It paints international governing bodies as the brainchildren of world powers trying to control other parts of the world such as the Russian Federation. By doing this, those worldwide organizations strip the Russian people of their choices and any power they have left. These organizations are defined as “Anglo-Saxon steering” applied to the rest of the world, an attempt to foster distrust because Western principles come from an ethnically and historically different population. 126 Anglo-Saxon Westerners are compared to the ruling classes that oppressed the Russian peasantry and working-class people before the Russian Revolution in 1917 through the use of the term “мирового господина,” roughly translated to mean a “world master.”127 _{By presenting this} particular term, Network’s leadership brings that language of oppression to the Russian reader’s

125 _{Сеть. "Политический принцип.” Accessed July 21, 2017. http://проектсеть.рф/foundations.} 126 _Ibid.

mind. After hundreds of years of repression by either the tsarist or Soviet governments, the association invokes a powerfully negative image.

Putin and his “team” are then said to serve the “real interests” of the Russian people, as though they are incapable of, and do not intend to, treat Russians in a similar way to the

politicians before them.128 Putin is reinvented in this sense, as he is referred to as having a “new team.”129 _{He himself has not changed, but it is just now that Russian politicians are standing up} to the world (another hint at comparison with Yeltsin) and telling international, “Anglo-Saxon” world institutions that “[Russians] exist, and [their] opinion will have to be taken into

account.”130 This is not a complex tactic, but rather a strategy of hype to make Putin seem fresh and up to the challenge posed by encroaching foreign powers. It is a rallying cry around him to create support even though he has already held power for such a long period of time.

The “Economic principle” (Экиномический принцип) demands Russians rely on the goods and services that they can provide themselves and urges that they resist the temptation to make unnecessary expenditures on products that will give them a Western image. Network calls products “the most contemporary media” which sends a message and influences behavior.131 _The group’s leadership poses the questions: “When a person buys something, what does he pay for?” People buy expensive, lavish Western goods to send the message that they are “fashionable” and worthy.132 The question is then what they consider themselves worthy of in this garb. Network uses this example as a way to discourage such behavior and encourage people to rely on Russian- made goods, which are humble and no flashier nor more impressive than necessary. The next 128 _{Сеть. "Политический принцип.”} 129 _Ibid. 130 _Ibid. 131 _{Сеть. " Экономический принцип.”} 132 _Ibid.

chapter will look at some of the fashions that Network has designed or supports. This modesty ties back into Burke’s theme of “prosperity of poverty.”133 _{Those who send the message that they} are with Russia, and do not pose in Western style or pretend to be something greater than they are, will be the people who prosper in the end. There is no promise that the road to this success will be easy, but it will be theirs.134

This particular principle relates heavily back to the Father-Manifesto. In Network’s eyes, the metaphor describing Russians led astray by the West presents itself not only as a

philosophical concept, but an economic policy that could lead Russia back into the relative prosperity and active industries it enjoyed in the Soviet period. Reliance on foreign goods, which the Russian people may have to go without in the instance of sanctions against the Kremlin for such actions as the Crimean annexation, cannot bring Russia the power it wants according to the group’s leadership, and longing for Western products will not help Russia’s situation. Like the Russian people, Russian goods will “work for Russia.”135 _{The implied message is that, like the} young Russians who must work toward their own futures as mentioned in the manifesto, the Russian economy must build on itself to achieve concrete progress.

Finally, the “Cultural principle” (Культурный принцип) takes on an issue not previously alluded to in Network’s ideology. This issue is that of linguistic superiority. It is a thinly veiled racist sentiment that places the Russian language above the many other languages that were never able to “construct a civilization.”136 The basis of this principle is that foreign words should not be used by themselves in the Russian language. Russians should study concepts from other

133 _{Burke, “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle,’” 194.} 134 _{Сеть. "Экономический принцип."}

135 _Ibid.

civilization-making languages (English, French, and Chinese are listed as examples) and then create their own Russian words for these concepts instead of using foreign words in conversation and thought. The argument for this strategy, aside from simple Russian superiority, is that people work with certain “programming” which is unique to each culture and language. The principle states that a patched-together programming language (Russian language with some incorporated foreign words and concepts) will not function as well as a program which is homogenous in structure the whole way through (Russian without these words).137

Network contradicts itself in this principle, though, because it abandons the analogy of a computer and its software and focuses on the nature of the Russian people. The interest of

practicality disappears with the phrase “It is impossible to build a democracy if it’s not within the people. If the people do not carry it in their blood.”138 Under the pretense of a language barrier, Network separates Russians from the concept of democracy and similar concepts originating abroad. Because these words are not natively Russian, the group hints at the possibility that