Понимание России.

[clement]

Ниже довольно странный текст о том, что такое Россия и каково в ней жить иностранцу:

http://www.mipt.vcu.edu/medsoc/UnderstandingRussia1.pdf

Для тех, кто не может читать PDF под lj-cut полный текст.


Matthew Maly tel./ fax in Moscow #330-4951
May 9, 1997

UNDERSTANDING RUSSIA
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ARRIVING WESTERNER

From one side, the people are understandable. From the other, they're inexplicable.
It all depends which side you're on, Whether you find them understandable or inexplicable.
But you are understandable to them From any side. And from any side inexplicable.

From a poem by DMITRI ALEXANDROVICH PRIGOV
Tr. by Carol Rumens, Nik Abu-Haidar and Jury Drobyshev

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: HOW HUMAN SOCIETIES DIFFER RUSSIAN CIVILIZATION
ASPIRATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE A SUPERHUMAN EFFORT
ENGLISHMEN MAKE GOOD SUITCASES; IN RUSSIA, FOLK SAYINGS ARE GOOD
FORM VS. ESSENCE TWO SETS OF RIGHTS
INDIVIDUAL AND SOC IAL POINTS OF VIEW A LEFT-HANDED MASTER
THE RUSSIAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS WORK VS. THE PROTESTANT ONE THE RUSSIAN CONCEPTION OF LAW
KRYSHA INFORMAL PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
THE RUSSIAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS LAW AS EXPRESSED BY PUSHKIN LAWS IN RUSSIA VS. LAWS IN THE WEST
WHY DO RUSSIANS HAVE NO RIGHTS? THE RUSSIAN CONCEPT OF LEGAL PRECEDENT
THE STALINIST TRANSFORMATION OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY GOODS PRODUCED BY THE SOCIAL ECONOMY
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY TYPES OF CRIMES
TWO TYPES OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN RUSSIA?
PRIVATIZATION MAFIA
CRIMINAL SUPERPOWER A FEW PARTING WORDS 1
1 Page 2 3
2
INTRODUCTION: HOW HUMAN SOCIETIES DIFFER
Human societies are much more different than we tend to admit and often are different not superficially, but fundamentally, in their
basic assumptions. For example, the Chinese do not use such a basic (from a Western point of view) thing as an alphabet, and to convey the
term ''surprise'' a Chinese writer has to draw a horse sticking its head out of a window.
But when we translate a Chinese text into English, the striking images that are used to convey the terms such as ''surprise'' get
completely lost, and the text loses much of its color. The point is that the original text is much more colorful than can be judged from an
English translation. The only thing that the Westerners see are the drawbacks that
the use of characters entails, while the advantages of their use remain hidden. But having to use elaborate characters-images, the Chinese
have developed a tendency to see things at once from many different sides. Just like their characters, a Chinese meal is always a combination
of several different ingredients, textures, and colors. The Chinese are not about to introduce a writing system based on
the alphabet, because for them the issue here is not just the method of putting words on paper, but their view of the world, their civilization.
In the same way, the Russian civilization is built on values that, while fundamental for the Russians, are both alien to the Westerners
and hidden from them. Some features of the Russian character Westerners tend to ignore, and at the same time, Westerners wrongly
assume that the Russian character possesses certain features that Westerners learned to see as universal. That is why the clash of values
and assumptions between the products of these two civilizations is such a common occurrence.
But the Chinese case is different from the Russian one, because in Russia a difficult transition into the unknown absolutely must be
made. The concept of private property is as basic to the development of
Western society as the alphabet is for the Western writing system. Western laws, Western customs, Western morality are all founded on
the concept of private property. And yet, in Russia virtually every aspect of social life has been influenced and often determined by the lack of
this concept. That led to a way of seeing things that is so different from the Western one that here we are dealing not just with another culture,
but with a distinctly different civilization. As a consequence of one missing basic concept, everything else had to adapt, compensate,
adjust, and change its nature and appearance. The Russians can no longer survive without private property and
will have to learn to accept it as a concept. There are quite a few other concepts that the Russians will have to learn to accept, while some of
the notions that have reigned here from time immemorial will have to be torn out, roots and all. This is a great historic conflict with which
you, as a Westerner living and working in Russia, will be confronted. A picture of a horse sticking its head out of a window is a basic
unit of Chinese language, but it is not a letter. Neither is it a word. It is a uniquely Chinese thing, a character. The same with Russia. In the
West, each country has its law. Suppose a Westerner wants to study Russian law. In every Western country law is firmly based on the
concept of private property, be it the land one owns or the rights one 2
2 Page 3 4
3
has --it is still private property. The point is that it is no easier to find ''law'' in Russia than to find an alphabet in China. There is a Russian
''something'' that plays the role of law, that substitutes for law (it is called zakon in Russian), but it resembles the Western law no closer
than the Chinese character resembles a Western letter. Those who look at Chinese characters and pretend that they are
letters are not going to get anywhere. Characters must be learned as characters; zakon must be learned as zakon, not as a ''weird law''. The
aim of this book is to help you do that. A few words should be said about this book itself. It was written
because Russia is profoundly different from the West, and yet, it is a very small book. It means that there is just enough space to state
something, but absolutely no space to substantiate the claims that are being made. The choice was made to fill this book with realities of life
in Russia rather than with disclaimers. We have very little space in which to discuss some very complicated phenomena, and the only way
to accomplish this task is to revert to striking symbols. Sometimes this is done not by being well-balanced but by being
purposely opinionated. It might be that some of the claims that will be made here would not be true from the point of view of academic
science: they might indeed be purposefully overstated to point your attention in a certain very important direction, and the goal was to do it
in a way that, it is hoped, you won't soon forget. You are already here in Russia, and will be here for some time. All
that needs to be done is to help you to discover Russia for yourself as you live here, meet its people, and breathe its air. That is why the aim
was not to get you to agree, but to alert you to something, to start you thinking about Russia, to prepare you for surprises.

RUSSIAN CIVILIZATION
As Russia has no concept of private property, it has no law in the Western sense (and could not have, no matter what the appearances).

Instead, property is ''suspended in the air'' by the conflicting claims of possession that surround it from all sides. As a result, possession of
any property can only be temporary and conditional. First, each successive "owner" uses this property to repel all other
claimants. Then, he must make useful alliances without which he would be ripped apart. Only then, if there still is time and strength, he tries to
quickly squeeze from this property everything that has any value. In the West, people get a plot of land and then plant an orchard on it. In
Russia, those who take upon themselves the pain of land ownership must first build a fence, then bribe the officials, and only then, if there
still is any strength left, plant potatoes that will have to be guarded around the clock. And after the harvest is in, one will have to deal with
murderous envy of less successful, less industrious, or simply wiser, more far-sighted, neighbors. As for the orchard, it gives its first fruits in
ten years, and in Russia no one has the wherewithal to hold back the siege for that long.
What you have you cannot use, you can only grab something that belongs to someone else. That is why Russia has so much territory;
that is why this territory is in so bad a shape. From that terrible feature of Russian civilization comes its best
feature. Russian culture is not materialistic and not firmly grounded, but changeable and fluid. It is searching not for a material object to hold on 3
3 Page 4 5
4
to or a firm position to occupy, but for feeling, emotion, or spiritual connection. As you see, the Russians have adapted to their ''Chinese
characters'', and it will not be easy to get them to use ''letters'' as they feel that they have much to lose from this transition (assuming that it
can be done at all, and that is a big assumption). Now, if there is no law (based on precedent and published in the
hardcover volumes decorated with gold, that is), there is something, as there must be, that plays the role of law, that occupies, so to speak,
the gaping hole that is left by its absence. And so, what we have here in place of the law is an envy-based comparison attempting to
determine what is ''fair''. As a consequence, there are envy based methods of social control such as the racket and the 93% tax on profit.
There also are temporary personal alliances founded on the rule ''you are whom you know'', and two ingredients that are most important
here: chance and change. Here is the crucial difference between Russia and the West:
Western civilization is based on property, on hard soil, on a brick house, on a leather-bound law book, and as such it is hard. A German knows
how ''it should be'' because he can touch it or look it up in a book. A Russian does not have this opportunity and does not want to have it:
he likes his civilization to be soft. He either hopes for a fat chance or goes for a big change. In a word, Russia is different.

ASPIRATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE
Let us compare the map of Russia to the map of Holland. Could it be that the map of Russia has something to do with the Russian

national character (and thus would help us to understand it), while the map of Holland might have something to do with the Protestant ethic
and Weberian spirit of capitalism? Holland is tiny and densely populated. What would, in such a
country, be the prevailing attitude towards the law? If people live so close together, then they all have to follow the rules that would make
their common survival possible. A Dutch punk throws a banana peel on the sidewalk: ''I've had it
with your external order, I feel strangled by your ever-present rules! I need a little freedom! '' And yet, he knows that the peel would be picked
up and disposed of properly, so that nobody is likely to slip on it and get hurt.
Each particular individual has to follow a bunch of rules, but society as a whole lives well. An individual is not free, but society is.
You are not allowed to throw a banana peel on the ground, but your city is clean. It is the cleanliness of your city that gives you freedom from
garbage, not your ability to dispose of your personal garbage the way you see fit. Citizens of Holland are bound by laws head to toe, but
theirs is a free country. Russia is huge and sparsely populated. What would be the
prevailing attitude towards the law there? What if people live so far apart that whatever they do does not affect others? The idea of
creating, let alone adhering to, the Law of the Land, seems ridiculous. Russian law is the attempt to answer a question, "Who are you, where
have you come from, and what do you want?" Russian law is strictly personal, and is based on exception as firmly as American law is based
in precedent. 4
4 Page 5 6
5
And what Law of the Land can there be if you do not see anyone else, and, no matter in what direction you look, there are but trees and
grass? Trees, grass, and sky above your head --could it be that you are
a God? It may sound overblown, but it would really help you to assume that the Russians believe themselves to be Gods. Within the next ten
minutes, you will understand what is meant by the word 'Gods', and the book will eventually convince you that the Russians are indeed such
''Gods''. Right now, don't get scared by this word, and you will soon see how useful it is in our effort to understand the Russians.
Indeed, the first thing to do, as a God, would be to ensure for yourself total personal freedom unrestrained by any laws. In a city, I
throw a banana peel right on the sidewalk. I am free, I am bound by no law; I live on a garbage dump and do not care. But others are Gods,
too. And so, first one assumes that the passerby's own divine powers would prevent him from slipping and falling so that no harm would be
done. This is where the famous Russian avos' meaning hopefully comes from. But what if you do fall? Then, it is either ''A broken leg won't
bother a God'', or ''It serves you right, you Devil''. In Holland, everyone looks at the punk with disapproval the
moment he drops the peel and then, in three seconds, the peel is picked up and disposed of; thus, the result of the punk's infraction is
nil. In Russia, sometimes it seems that only burning the offender at stake would sufficiently impress others so that they would observe the
rules, and then only for three seconds. The time dimension of the law is very important. Holland is small,
and there is nowhere to run. Thus, if you go somewhere, the situation is not likely to change. And so, you submit to rules and to laws. The
result is that the law is permanently there. In Russia, the situation has always been different. If you did not like the way things were going in a
particular area of the country, you could just move a thousand kilometers away, still remain in Russia but not be susceptible to the
offending regulation. When you have property, you stay put, and when the law is not
arbitrary, you do not have to run away. But when you have nothing to tie you to a place, when you fear for your life, you do try to run away.
Could this be the reason why the urge of the Russians to extend their borders was so much greater than that of their neighbors, so that the
Russians eventually came to spread over such a large territory? Usually, people civilize the territory they settled first, the
heartland of their state, and then try to spread further. In Russia, this is also the case, but to a much lesser extent. The Russians were afraid
to stay in place as there was no rule of law, and left their heartland almost as underdeveloped as the new territories they moved into.
In the West, your property ties you to a particular place. But what if there is no law to protect your property and, as a consequence, you
have no property? That would mean that you could move freely, but the state cannot allow that because otherwise there would be no one to
harvest the crops and pay taxes. Thus, the state had to tie its citizens to a place by force. We see that serfdom was a direct consequence of
the lack of protection of private property. Running away from the law, to a place where this law does not
apply (and yet, a place that is still located in Russia!) is a major theme of Russian history. There is absolutely no notion that the law is set
''once and for all''. As a consequence, there is no notion that the laws 5
5 Page 6 7
6
are set for everyone. A private does not follow the law if the captain does not see him, and this law is not a law for generals.
Case Study 1. A traffic police chief in the town of N. wanted motorists to follow traffic laws. He ordered every traffic policeman in town, even
those who were assigned to desk duty, to be on the streets every weekend, writing tickets mercilessly, to all traffic violators, big and
small. Soon, he got a call from the local hospital informing him that every Monday the hospital could not cope with the number of traffic
accident victims coming in. You see, during the weekend the drivers were being closely watched, and thus they followed the traffic rules. As
a result, some pedestrians were making an assumption that cars would not run the red light anymore. On Monday, those simple souls were in
the hospital. In Russia, if no one watches over your shoulder, there is no law.

Here is the Russian legal framework: ''If you are a God, you converse with other Gods in order to find out, by means thoroughly
divine, what would please the Supreme Deity. If you are a Devil, then you have no business asking for (legal) protection from us Gods. ''
There in fact exists a large body of written law in Russia. But the laws are not followed. Criminals disregard the law, and so do the police,
ordinary people, businessmen, judges, elected officials, the government, the Constitutional Court, and the President. The law is
followed only in a manner dictated by a particular situation. The uniqueness of Russia stems precisely from the fact that its entire legal
code hinges upon two words: IT DEPENDS. Although a written law exists, abiding by it is not an option: by
following one law you are quite likely to break another one, and if you try to follow all the existing laws, you would not be able to do anything.
In Russia, laws exist to separate Gods from lower beings. Gods accomplish miracles, that is how the others know they are Gods. Can
you jump fifty feet in the air? A God can, because the law of gravity is not for Him. If you can't jump that high --it is because you are human,
and for you there is a law that prevents you from accomplishing this feat.

Why is it relevant? In Russia everyone wants to be a God, not a human. Thus, if you are caught observing the law, it means you are a
lower being, it means that you did so out of fear. The only solution is to pretend that you do so because you simply did not notice that the law
existed, failing to break it by pure chance, or because you were trying to be extravagant. If you do not cross the street on the red light when
there are no cars around, everyone thinks that you are just standing there struck by a sudden thought.

Russian law is contradictory, meaningless, and unfair, but it is not bad law: the law simply serves a social function of separating those
who are not subject to any laws from those who are subject to all of them at once and are, therefore, permanently guilty. This is the reason
why the law is so badly formulated and is such a mess: those who pass the laws do not really care what these laws are like, because, should
the need arise, they expect to be able to break them, not just with impunity but flaunting and advertising the fact. The law in Russia is 6
6 Page 7 8
7
what it is because those who wrote it from the very beginning meant to break it. And these laws are as strict and demeaning as they are
because those who cannot break them are not thought of as human anyway.

Case Study 2. Suppose we enacted a 55 miles per hour speed limit. This could mean two things: 1) everyone goes no faster than 55 or 2)
as no one can go any faster than 55, going at 150 is yet another privilege that we reserve for ourselves. Russia is a textbook example of
the second method of legal interpretation.

At the same time, ordinary citizens know that if they are picked out, they will be found guilty of one thing or another, so what exactly
the law says doesn't matter. What matters is not being noticed.

Case Study 3. Take a minute to observe the work of a Moscow traffic policeman. There is, of course, a clear set of traffic regulations.
Motorists tend to ignore them when there are no police around. But what if there are? A policeman does not stop those cars that break the
rules: he stops the cars he feels like stopping. The driver comes out with his license and a bill folded inside. This driver never asks what he
was guilty of, if anything, and does not ask for a receipt. The cop takes the bill and waives the car on. But in other cases, a driver does not
need to pay: he shows one ID or another and listens to the cop's profuse apologies as one hundred and fifty miles an hour is not a
speeding violation, after all.

Now it becomes clear what kind of ''gods'' the Russians are. They do not have rights, protection of the law, conveniences: they are either
''above'' all that, or ''below'' it. There are a few who are ''above'' and millions who are ''below''. By rejecting everything that is human scale,
by not allowing for human weaknesses, the Russians turned themselves not into gods but into slaves. To establish oneself as a human being, to
accept the responsibilities of a citizen --for that, the Russians did not have enough strength. It is by default that they behave like gods, being
too weak to just be people. This explains one feature of Russia, that is so striking as to defy
any ''normal'' explanation. In comparison with the West, Russia is a sadistically cruel and utterly inhumane country. Russians are well-educated,
professional, and seem perfectly civilized. But a patient in a Russian hospital, a soldier in the Russian Army, an elderly person
standing in line, and everyone else besides, on occasion, is treated with great cruelty and, at best, with casual rudeness. And this is not about
to disappear: on the contrary, it is not even met with public disapproval! If you are a Devil, you deserve much worse than you get; if
you are a God, you would not be bothered, even take it as a sign of flattery, something like "We know you can take it." They seem to be
saying, "During the siege of Leningrad people lived for 900 days on half a pound of breadlike substance a day, at forty below zero, and under
constant shelling, and you are requesting that a salesgirl be polite to you --you have no shame." And this is an argument to be taken
seriously. Russia is indeed populated by many people who have accomplished inhuman feats. People did survive the siege, and the war
with Hitler, and the camps, and the lines, and the faces of their fellow 7
7 Page 8 9
8
metro travelers. Note that I am not saying that it was their recent history that made the Russians so rude: for the last millennium the
Russians were measuring themselves not against a human standard but against an absolute one. In the twentieth century the Russians brought
their troubles upon themselves by, once again, reaching out for the absolute, and no matter what they say, they see their recent history as
normal. So when you encounter rudeness and cruelty, coming from people
who appear to be middle-and upper-middle class, remember that this is a country that does not strive to reach a human standard of behavior
(and, indeed, does not have any). What it (successfully) tries to achieve is the extreme, extreme in bad (which is much easier) and
sometimes also in good. Personally, I feel that to live in such a rough environment can do
a great deal of good for some Westerners, so don't let this rudeness catch you unprepared, be ready for it, and take it as a compliment. You
can indeed take that, and more.

Why is it relevant? Westerners living in Russia are often confused because of their inability to make a sharp distinction between the
concepts of "law" and "power". They think that power flows from law. In the West, the President has power because he was lawfully elected,
and the law entitles you to do something. But Russia is a country of power, not a country of law, and the law simply serves to explain why
the power is always right. Russian traffic "law" is a good example: ? If the policeman chooses to stop you (and no reason is necessary),
you are automatically guilty, and you pay an (illegal) bribe. If you argue, all kinds of laws and regulations (note their function!) will be
produced to make you very sorry that you did not pay the bribe right away.
? If there is no policeman around you drive however you like. ? Regardless of what you might have done, if you produce a document
that scares the policeman, he will apologize profusely and wish you a good trip.
Thus, you should never look at how it should be by law, but study the correlation of power, knowing that the strongest always wins. A cheetah
may catch an antelope, but then a lion may come along, and it will no longer be the cheetah who is having dinner. Again, the law is
established in a particular place to be in force at a particular moment. There is no legal precedent.

A SUPERHUMAN EFFORT
In Holland, if you decide to plow your field, you go ahead and plow it: is not it only a hundred square feet anyway? In Russia,

deciding to plow a field the size of Holland takes some spiritual strength, even for a God. So what do you do? You either do a godly
thing, such as daydream or drink some vodka, or you collect all your superhuman strength, go ahead and actually do it. In Russia, you will
indeed see a landscape that is adequately described by this paradigm: it is either a complete wasteland, or a huge super-project. 8
8 Page 9 10
9
Why is it relevant? Russians do not feel comfortable with small forms and limited goals. They would prefer to open a restaurant that sits two
hundred rather than one that sits ten.

To recap: Westerners are bound by commonly known rules and regulations, and that allows their society to be free. Russians tolerate
the rule of no law over them at all, they are complete anarchists, and it is possible (scarcely, but possible) to keep them all in line only with a
combination of cruelty and arbitrariness. When the Russians find themselves living under such a regime, they start looking for
instructions that, in this context, are no less than the instructions on how to survive, instructions that are very hard to find and to follow.
Only the logistical challenge of day-to-day survival can hope to control anarchic Russian gods.
The essential difference between Russian and Western culture, stems from the aspiration of almost every Russian to achieve
''greatness'', to rise high above it all. Here, being ''great'' does not mean being a superachiever, it simply means ''one who disregards the
small''. It represents a striking contrast to Westerners, who are usually content to use a normal human scale as a measure of their interests
and achievements. They may live well or very well, be successful or very successful, somewhat spiritual or quite spiritual. But for a Russian, a
human scale of interests and achievements is deeply embarrassing. It might be their huge landmass, it might be something else, but
something certainly prompts them to think far above human height. Because of this, some Russians do indeed achieve greatness, but a
great majority, feeling themselves unable to achieve it, lose any respect for themselves, opt for no effort at all, or try to achieve
greatness in evil. That is why the mortality rate among Russian men is so high, that is why there are so many drunks: they unconsciously set
for themselves a task that is much harder than the task of average Westerners.
There are countries that are much poorer than Russia, but in few places do the population feel so downtrodden as here. Russians feel
that they had their wings clipped, while people in other cultures feel content to live without wings, and are therefore more successful than
the Russians in building all kinds of ''flying devices'', devices, that simply make one's life easier and more comfortable, devices that only a
God would spurn.
ENGLISHMEN MAKE GOOD SUITCASES; IN RUSSIA, FOLK SAYINGS ARE GOOD

A perceptive Russian writer, Vassili Rozanov, once noted ''Englishmen make good suitcases; in Russia, folk sayings are good. ''
Here is how the Russians think: ''What kind of a person would you be if you actually make good suitcases, if you put your mind to such a lowly
task as suitcase making? A boring, narrow-minded one. '' A Russian who had the bad luck and permanent embarrassment of being a suitcase
maker in real life would purposefully make bad suitcases. In so doing, he (in most cases, unconsciously!) seems to be saying: ''Look what bad
suitcases I make, me, a poet who has been put to suitcase making! Believe me, I pay these suitcases no heed at all, thinking of nothing
but poetry... . Okay, I do not actually write poetry, but I would have, if 9
9 Page 10 11
10
I did not have to occupy myself with these goddamned suitcases... . All right, I am an illiterate drunk, but at least my suitcases are bad; I may
be a good-for-nothing, but at least I am not a suitcase-brain. '' The ''German'' love for making good suitcases, German pride in
their craftsmanship is one of the most foreign traits to Russia. To make a suitcase you could pack the Kremlin in --that is another matter. This
is for the Russians. Here it suitcases us, I mean it suits us, to recall Russian literature and art, littered with uncompromising attempts at
inhuman greatness. Solzhenitsyn is a good example. He fought in W. W. II, was arrested and sent to camps, had cancer that was thought
to be terminal, cured himself, got out of hospital, wrote books that made him world-famous, was arrested again, expelled, went on to write
several volumes on the history of Russian revolution, bitterly criticized the West, and then came back to Russia, touching down in the very
Siberia the description of which made him famous, and immediately announced still more plans and projects that he has. Would you not
agree that a description of a life similar to this one could only have come from the classical Greeks, that Solzhenitsyn is a modern Odysseus
or Jason? As for how ''German'' his work is, that is another matter. Are his statements well-balanced and fair, would his historical
interpretation stand to real scientific scrutiny... . Most likely, not always, but that was not his aim anyway. The Russian way to open a
locked door is to kick it in, frame and all. To open the door with a key is not something a giant would do.

Why is it relevant? As a practical matter, it seems that Russians would be most happy making a product perceived to be ''the best in the
world'', while treating Russians as ''blue collar workers'', in the Western sense of the word, would probably be counterproductive. Work should
either be presented as achievement, or as a hard necessity which buys an exiting and fulfilling life outside of work. (And ''exiting and fulfilling''
means more here than in other places, as your Russian coworkers are likely to be people with broad and varied interests.) It is even more
important in Russia than elsewhere to fill the workday to the brim with meaningful activity.

FORM VS. ESSENCE
Let us now discuss the following poem by Dmitri Alexandrovich Prigov:

If you have no food, You have got something else.
If you have nothing worth having, You ate something recently, did you not?
If you have nothing at all, Neither food, nor anything worth having,
You have got something still: You are living, you are contemplating.

(Tr. by Matthew Maly)
There is form (how it should be) and there is essence (what there should be). Western countries are countries of form. First, one takes a 10
10 Page 11 12
11
spade; then, one plants a tree; then, one gets a harvest of apples and finds out that there are not enough apples, so that one has to plant
again, probably a better tree, or more of the same trees. A never ending story that never gives an ideal result! To a Russian psyche, this
is very alien. Nothing here is done step by step in order to achieve a limited goal. A Russian lays on his bed dreaming of the day when all
people will have their fill of wonderful apples, knowing that as it is impossible to achieve at once, it is better not to start. Many talented
people do not start anything because of that. After all, Russia let half of its population perish for the sake of
universal brotherhood. And there is no contradiction here: killing a person is a form, therefore it is nothing, but what was meant (and this
is the only thing that counts) was to have brotherhood. Coming back to the poem: when does the protagonist start
''living, contemplating''? When he has neither food nor anything worth having. Frenchmen live during dinner and contemplate afterwards. For
the protagonist, existence begins where the earthly life ends. He lives in the realm of the absurd, in a some sort of circus, as that helps him
to avoid the realization that he is just a human being. This is a very Russian feature, and it can account for many frustrations (as well as for
many wonderful discoveries) that you are likely to encounter here.

Case Study 4. Here is how one Russian woman gives directions to her apartment: "When you come into the elevator, press a button that says
'18'." Well, what do you think, how many stories does her apartment building have?. "At least 18" would be a wrong answer. The building has
nine stories, and the lady lives on the fifth floor. There just was no button with a correct number.

TWO SETS OF RIGHTS
There are two very different sets of rights. There could be rights that allow people to create, even though that would increase inequality.

These could be called genius rights. Or there could be rights that ensure that no one is left behind because of his inability to compete fairly with
others. These rights strengthen equality by forbidding creative and productive activities. These rights could be (and often are) called
people's rights. A train can either leave the station, bringing those who are inside to their destinations, or it can wait for those who keep
running up to it, defeating, for the sake of equality, the train's purpose as a means of transportation.
The Communist system attempted to grant people the following benefits:
1) to have no one to envy; 2) not to produce but still be able to eat;
3) not to think but still be able to survive; 4) to be alive but still not have to act;
5) to become an adult but still be treated like a child; 6) not to learn but still know all one needs to know;
7) to be able to fail but still be respected no less than others; 8) to have no need to learn or use one's own living language, but to
have ready-made phrases and ideas for every occasion; 9) to have no use for freedom, to remain content when enslaved; 11
11 Page 12 13
12
10) not to have memory and thus be able to suffer massacres, insults and betrayals without being broken or offended;
11) to be fully protected from the responsibility of creating and developing oneself.
At the time when, because of the growing complexity of life, fewer and fewer people could sustain themselves as individuals, the
totalitarian state, rejecting the rights that only individuals can cherish, introduced a set of rights that could sustain the entire people. That is
why totalitarian states (the words "Communist" and "fascist" both emphasize togetherness, being made into one) rightly call themselves
people's democracies. Communism rewarded people for failure and in so doing fulfilled
the fondest dream of many. It was not a system where power belonged to the unfit, weak, dependent, controlled, nameless, and personally
powerless, it was a system where those who were in power acted on behalf of the weak and in their interests, assuming that such people
would want to forever remain who they were. Here lies the problem of Russia's young democracy: it must introduce a set of rights that is
directly opposite to those that the people know and love, the rights from which most of the people derived tangible benefits.
In modern America it is probably harder to remain illiterate than to earn a college degree, while the life of a drug addict is probably more
difficult than the life of a college professor. Yet, for their considerable effort people who strive to fail get no reward. By contrast, the
Communist system allowed one to turn personal failure into social success: a failure, a person who envies but is not envied, is the most
valuable member of a collective. In general, it can be said that Americans are never satisfied
because they have unlimited room for growth and can always do better. By contrast, the Soviets lived within a collective where they could
always find someone who was even worse off than themselves. That is why they were ''profoundly grateful'' and could easily reconcile
themselves with the fact that they could not do better than their collective would allow.
Western society is a dictatorship of those who are successful or, more precisely, the dictatorship of possibility over ability. By contrast,
the Communist state was a democracy with one voter, ''the people'' who throughout the history of every Communist state (otherwise known as
"People's Democracy"), have always directly and actively participated in the administration of state affairs.

Why is it relevant? As we see, Communist society was not ''all bad'', and it certainly was not bad for all. It is not some natural disaster from
which the entire population flees without looking back. It did give people certain great benefits (" we want you to be in peace forever and
never feel hunger, sorrow, or pain --so we kill you with this bullet right now"), and it successfully attempted to remodel them in such a way
that they learned to cherish these "benefits", so that now many Russians reject the benefits offered by democracy, while those who do
not reject them, do not know how, or are unable, to use them. The result is, that unless there are real fruits of reform, the Communists
could be democratically voted back to power. 12
12 Page 13 14
13
Case Study 5. What was the foundation of the Communist "benefits"? Utter lack of respect for an individual. What is the foundation of
democratic rights? Respect for an individual. Those who are in power in today's Russia consider themselves democrats. But are they? There
could be only one test: do they feel respect for people as individuals or don't they? Well, they do not. They do not know how. Just consider the
way Yeltsin fires his ministers --you would not treat a dog that way. During the elections of 1993, TV ads of "Russia's Choice" talked down to
people as though they were two inches in height. And how about the police of the "democratic" state that routinely beat suspects, while
"democrats" fail to notice that anything might be wrong?

INDIVIDUAL AND SOC IAL POINTS OF VIEW
Let's suppose that I created something for myself. I was an independent actor, and so I should look at the event from my personal

point of view. The relevant facts would be: 1) I advanced my position in the world;
2) I did so through my personal effort; 3) I got a feeling of personal satisfaction;
4) the ability of others to successfully compete with me has been undermined.
As a result of my action the situation of one person improved, while the situation of all the others (comparatively) worsened. Thus, is
it not surprising that I arouse envy in others. Now suppose that somebody got killed. I did not act; we saw it
only as observers, so it is natural to consider this event from the point of view of "the people" seen as one unit. Each "part" of "the people"
would interpret this event as follows: 1) I (as well as everybody else) advanced my position in the
world; 2) I did so expending no personal effort whatsoever;
3) my (and everybody else's) competitive position has improved, especially if the victim was talented or attractive;
4) I shared a feeling of satisfaction that everybody experienced; As a result of this occurrence the situation of only one person
worsened (and, being dead, this person is no longer a social actor!), but the situation of all the others improved. And do not forget that each
constituent part of "the people" benefited without expending any personal effort whatsoever. The conclusion is obvious: the more they
kill, the better, as long as it is not me. That is why Stalin killed so many and died so popular: those with whom he was popular were alive.
Now we know why the Great Purges engineered by Stalin enjoyed unanimous popular support. Those who had been denounced
disappeared and thus failed to oppose the Purges. And those who remained could now move into the victims' apartments and jobs.

Why is it relevant? The minute you arrive here, you hear about the rampant racket (to say nothing of an incredible number of business-related
murders) that exists in this country. Everyone fears it, everyone hopes to avoid it and deals with it as best they can. But do they
oppose it or welcome it, do they fight it or participate in it, are they victims of the racket or themselves members of a gang of racketeers? 13
13 Page 14 15
14
This mechanism, fortunately, is becoming uncommon in the West, so let me give you another example, just to make sure that you get it
down pat. In the Middle Ages there were only a few writers. Not all of them were good, but their profession made them exceptional, and they
were respected accordingly. Today there are thousands of writers, only a few of whom are good. Being a writer is no longer exceptional, so bad
writers have nothing for which they can be respected. In the West they have nobody to blame but themselves. But there could be a system
that works differently: It could quickly discover the best writers (of whom there are always only a few), silence them, and destroy their
work. Then, the remaining thousands of writers, collectively (as their level would be approximately the same, somewhere around one tenth of
the level a genius could reach, give or take another tenth) become the best writers around. And they start to feel great. Would they oppose
the system now?
A LEFT-HANDED MASTER
In effect, Russia and the Russians can be described in a very few words: aspirations are big; the economy is based on envy; the law and

personal relationships are informal and soft. Another extremely important term is technique. What is it? Technique is a set sequence
of movements, deeds, or events that allows us to accomplish a certain pre-determined goal. There is a technique that a car company uses to
build a car, and this technique is used repeatedly to build every car that follows.
The introduction of the term technique makes it possible for us to turn to the discussion of the basic form of organization of Russian
society: Russian society is one that refuses to submit to any technique. This is where the uniqueness of Russian civilization comes from.
There is a famous story by a Russian writer Nikolai Leskov called A Left-Handed Master that best describes this attitude. A group of
Englishmen presented the Russian tsar with a tiny mechanical flea. The flea, visible only through a microscope, after having been wound with
the tiniest key, would perform an elaborate dance. The tsar wished to find a Russian master who could top that English mechanical feat and
uphold Russia's reputation. So, it was reported to him that in a village somewhere in the backwoods of Russia lived a master who could do
something about it. Off went the tsar's messenger, and brought the flea to the master. ''Can you do something with it? '' ''Yes, I can. '' "What will
it be? '' ''How do I know? Leave the flea with me and come back in a week. I'll have something done to it. '' ''Here is the microscope that
comes with it. '' ''I do not need this tinyscope of yours as my eye is quite a straightshot. '' (Note how the Left-Handed Master rejects the
technique that is embedded in language by inventing his own words.) So the messenger leaves the flea with the Master, returns for it a week
later and brings the Master and the flea back to the tsar. The tsar takes out the microscope and looks. The flea lies there, but there is nothing
else. ''You broke the thing! '', shouts the tsar's messenger and gives the Master a good whack. ''What have you done? '', asks the tsar. ''Well,
says the Master, your tinyscope is just not strong enough to see. '' The tsar called in the Englishmen, who brought the strongest microscope
they had. And then the tsar saw that on each of the flea's legs there is a little horseshoe, and on each nail it says ''A Left-Handed Master from
Russia''. Fine job, indeed! Then the tsar puts in the key, winds the flea 14
14 Page 15 16
15
up, but the flea does not dance. And the Englishmen explained that the mechanism was calculated so precisely that the additional weight of the
horseshoes makes it impossible for the flea to raise its legs. There has never been a better description of the Russian attitude
towards technology. The accomplishment of the English is purely technical: the flea is designed to dance, the microscope is used to
assemble the parts, the names of the masters are nowhere to be seen. The Russian Master puts horseshoes on the flea (horseshoes that the
flea never needed) and puts his name on every nail. As he works without a microscope, with a naked eye, his accomplishment, taken as
such and considered from a point of view of an individual human achievement, is much greater than that of the English masters, but the
flea can no longer dance. All to the better: for the judgment of Gods, as it were, the English present but a mechanical device, while the Russian
Master proves that his human eye is unhumanly sharp. By carelessly breaking the flea, the Master shows that in the larger scheme of things
the flea plays a role that is less than negligible. For him, what matters is the achievement of an individual: and that was why the "tinyscope"
was rejected with such disdain.

Case Study 6. A very expensive Swiss Precision Machine Tool, incorporating the newest and the most advanced technology, was
bought and installed by a Russian factory. This Machine Tool required absolute cleanliness, lack of vibration, and quite a few things besides.
Yet, very soon a heavy jack-hammer was dropped on it from a high overpass. You see, the Tool had a meter which showed how many parts
were made in a day and when the Tool was at work, and thus prevented its operator from sharing a cigarette with friends. This factory now
makes do with a venerable piece of equipment with a plaque on the front saying John Brown Works, London, 1903. Precision may not be the
same, but the workers are happy.

Russian society is based on connections between friends, relatives, and dependents. This is what the Russians cherish the most.
Next on the list, comes mastery. But mastery is seen in a different light in comparison, for example, with Japan. In Japan, a person is
subservient to his own mastery, has an obligation before his own skill: to behave in a certain way, to perfect the skill, to adhere to the highest
standard of quality. In Russia, a person is subservient to nothing but his all-encompassing dream, a dream that only a God could turn into
reality. Still, mastery is very important and prestigious to most Russians, provided that human dimension of mastery is placed first,
before the technical one. A Russian saying states this very well: ''One must be a good person; everything else will come with it. '' The role of
money in Russian society is increasing, and yet money still occupies only fourth position. To recap: a lofty dream, friendship, mastery,
money. As for duty --it is not high on the list.

Case Study 7. As you are reading this, some American army recruits are learning electronics, others -avionics. They sit peering into a computer
screen. Their Russian counterparts, however, have just received an order to sweep the floor. But with what? There is no broom, no dust
pan... . A bunch of twigs and the visor of one's cap? Or maybe a toothbrush will do? The soldier can carry out this order only if he is 15
15 Page 16 17
16
inventive and able to use available resources imaginatively. But please do not think that it is a specially invented ''touchy-feely'' exercise,
aimed to make soldiers more creative: as far as the officers are concerned, the goal of this exercise is simply to degrade the soldier.
Russian creativity is not an art form, but the consequence of a lack of resources. Russians have to be creative because they cannot produce
anything. (And they cannot produce anything because they dislike doing anything that is human in scale and requires a step-by-step approach).
Moreover, when one lacks resources and has to make do, the quality suffers very badly indeed: a floor, swept with one's toothbrush is never
clean. In Russia, unfortunately, it is all right not to be a real professional. The point is to be able to do everything, to be able to do
with what you have got. And note that there is always a lingering suspicion that if you do anything really well you are probably somewhat
narrow-minded, dependent not on your own skills, but on some technical device.
So if you do do something well, you should apologize... Hey, wait!! First hide (or better destroy) whatever good you have done, and
then apologize, begging those who saw what you have done to forget it and not to take it personally. The last sentence is so important that
when I realized I had almost forgotten it, I broke into cold sweat: indeed, I almost advised you to turn yourself in without destroying the
evidence! --the author.

THE RUSSIAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS WORK VS. THE PROTESTANT ONE

The Russian approach to the process of labor and their assessment of labor's goal is very different from that which exists in
the West. Protestants believe that the soul manifests itself and is developed in the process of work, while Russians believe that the soul
develops through suffering, through not succumbing to obstacles. And that amounts to a world of difference.
Work creates material things, the more beautiful and the more sophisticated the better. Westerners are happy about that, but the
Russians might be very suspicious, as these things can lessen, or even altogether extinguish the suffering, that is, the benefit one is supposed
to derive from encountering obstacles. One who encounters no obstacles has no opportunity to suffer, and so his soul remains
undeveloped. If one has the mechanical device that makes overcoming an obstacle so easy, then how can one derive any suffering necessary
for the soul? If you decide to climb a mountain, would you like a helicopter to
deposit you on the mountaintop? Similarly, Jesus Christ, who could do any miracle, allowed that he be crucified. The Russians have the same
attitude and have a tendency to look at everything that alleviates suffering as if it were the thirty pieces of silver.
And so it is a lack of material things that Russians have always considered a mark of spiritual strength, goodness, and, most
importantly, freedom (note that Westerners think that material possessions give, not take away, freedom). That is why the rich have
always been seen in Russia as suspect. Note how good an ideological foundation this is for envy and laziness --two of the most destructive
human impulses that are so characteristic of Russians. Furthermore, this attitude provides an ideal cover-up for the offspring of envy: 16
16 Page 17 18
17
general indiscriminate hatred of one's neighbors. If we recall our banana peel example, we could see that throwing a banana peel on a sidewalk
"has a good side to it" as "it could give someone a chance to suffer by slipping on it". What a fertile ground Russia was for socialism, and it
could be as fertile a ground for a state run by criminals! In a ''German'' culture, one considers a well-made gadget to be a
result of a spiritual effort as so much careful and loving labor went into it. In Russia, a gadget is an anti-spiritual thing: if one is not at peace
with one's surroundings, one uses a gadget as a shield or as a means of escape. Also, once the gadget is made, the labor is over, and as
labor is seen as suffering undertaken with the aim of spiritual elevation, the act of finishing the gadget signifies the end of spiritual effort, the
rejection of it. One seems to be saying, "I no longer seek to come closer to God, I've got this shiny new gadget." Alexander Pushkin said it
best:
The long-awaited moment has come My work of many years is done.
Why this inexplicable sadness Now distresses me so?

Trans. by Matthew Maly
A thing done well has something of the devil in it: it puts a full stop to the process of labor. It signifies a rebellion that claims that the
suffering that was the labor, could end, as if the soul does not need to be developed any further. That is why a real Russian product is always
left somewhat unfinished and, ideally, clearly bears the marks of its maker's suffering.

Why is it relevant? The Russians hate to finish a job and do it well: they consider it sinful. They much prefer to do a job badly and leave it
unfinished as that leaves them at peace with themselves. As an alternative, they like huge and unstructured assignments that can never
be done or even assessed. On the other hand, and this is also very important, no material object is permitted to overshadow a human
being, as behooves a human that aspires to be a God.

To recap: in Russia it is not the result, but the process of labor that is important. The process requires suffering; the result, the
product, signifies the end of the process, its defeat, the denial of its goal. By contrast, in Germany, the fruit of labor is its result, and the
result is joyous. Thus, labor is fed by anticipation, it is pleasant, and to finish the work well done is a moral act. In Germany, a good person
makes good suitcases, while a bad person makes the ones that are not so very good. In Russia, it is the process of labor that matters, it is a
way to try one's endurance, to suffer, to improve oneself through suffering. To commit oneself to this process, one must gather a great
deal of spiritual strength, and not many are able to do so. In Russia, a good person is forever engaged in attempting to make a suitcase, while
the best person spends years simply collecting his strength in the hope that one day he, too, would be making a suitcase. Not a normal
suitcase, of course (we recall how embarrassing that would be): a 17
17 Page 18 19
18
suitcase, into which, for example, "one could put everything that is bad on this earth, lock it, and throw away the key".
Note how Russian a project it was to build a Communist state, and how stupid were those who asked what this state would be like.
Building it was everything, and this was exciting precisely because it was not likely to end in anything.
The result is that a German can make everything; a Russian can endure anything.

Why is it relevant? Here is how this difference in approach can be exploited in relation to business: a theoretical problem that may require
a lifetime to solve can successfully be solved by a Russian; a smart solution that saves labor or resources could also be found. As an
inducement, the process, such as an interesting problem or pleasant work environment, works much better than the result, such as the
money or the real possibility that the problem will soon be solved. The reluctance of the Russians to accept social technique has
another important implication for business: workers tend to want to put a bit of their personality into the product they make and tend to value
not so much the quality of the final product itself, but the human effort and ingenuity that went into making it.

THE RUSSIAN CONCEPTION OF LAW
In the West, the basis for the organization of society is formed by a system of laws. What is ''law''? Law is the rule, according to which,

certain entities are supposed to interact, not in one particular instance, but always, the word always being particularly important. What would
then be a law that regulates the behavior of people in society? Well, the very same thing as a law of physics. Several entities, in this case
people, are supposed to always interact in a certain way. For example, the law on ''keeping your city clean'' proclaims that all people, no
matter who they are, and no matter for what reason, should not, ever, throw garbage on the street.
But wait! People are not stones. They are animate, alive, in control of their own, distinctly different destinies. What do you mean by
''all people'', what do you mean by ''ever''? Is John the same as Peter? Don't they act one day in one manner and another day in another?
We see that social laws are based on the legal fiction that assumes that social actors are not people with their differing
biographies, desires, and circumstances, but legal entities. The social law thus becomes a technical procedure (either positive, such as ''pay
taxes'' or negative, such as ''do not litter'') that must be equally followed by all legal entities, no matter who they are. Be it a famous
person or an average one, a small company or a large one --all follow the same procedure as formulated by law.
The law is a commandment, but not every commandment can be a law. A commandment such as ''Kill anyone you see'' is not a law. A law
is the commandment that is judged by its subjects to be fair and reasonable. Thus, first there must be a mechanism for passing fair and
reasonable laws, then there should be a system of such laws, and only then would the citizens be prepared to restrict themselves, to see
themselves not as individuals but as legal entities, subject to these laws. 18
18 Page 19 20
19
Individuals need from society predictability and protection, and, in exchange for others becoming subject to the laws that provide and
assure these two things, are themselves willing to become subjects to these laws. Each individual follows these laws and desires that others
do likewise. Thus, the system of laws becomes more important than any particular individual. A lawbreaker, under such a system, goes
against the basic interests of everyone else and is punished for law breaking by the entire society.
You probably recognized in this description an idealized ''Western'' system. But what is the situation in Russia? Historically, there has
never been a system whereby accountable people's representatives were elected to write and to enforce the law. Thus, the law has never
been fair; the goal of fairness as such has never been pursued. As a consequence, no citizen would willingly become subject to such law,
even if the law appeared to be fair. The law was seen as an instrument of oppression as such, even when its consequences appeared perfectly
reasonable. As the law was considered to be directed against virtually everyone, no one was willing to support it. Instead, each subject to this
law tries to turn it to his or her advantage, to ensure that the law deals with them less harshly than with others. Turning the law to one's
advantage means that you pull the law to the right while someone else pulls it to the left. As a result, the law is torn to shreds and trampled
underfoot. One is not content to be under law but tries to place oneself above it.
In the West, people are willing to lend a hand to the law so that the law is raised above their heads as a common shelter. But in Russia
everyone fights the law and soon it turns into a million shreds with which each person, open to all winds, tries to tie the hands of his or her
opponents. Thus, there are no laws in the Western sense of the word in Russia, and this has always been, and still is, the case.
As nobody observes the law anyway, in Russia it has but one major function: to increase the power of the bureaucrats. The real law
here is "you pay, and I'll make an exception", or "it depends on who you are (how can you hurt me or reward me?)". That is why Russian laws
are: all-encompassing, to regulate everything, so that a bureaucrat can
squeeze a bribe from every inch of legal territory under his or her control;
vague, so that everything would depend on the interpretation and goodwill of the bureaucrat;
unpublished, so that one would need a bureaucrat just to find out what, if anything, one can do;
very severe, so as to scare a citizen into giving more; not enforced, so that people could live.

Russian laws are known for their cruelty, and this is so precisely because the laws are so arbitrary and unpredictable. By contrast, a
Western law does not have to be cruel as its strength lies in the certainty of enforcement.
So, what is it that in Russia serves to organize this crowd of individuals, devoid of the shelter provided by law? These are informal
personal relationships. In Russia, to study the system of informal personal relationships
is as important as to study laws in America, and serves the same purpose. 19
19 Page 20 21
20
KRYSHA
When Russians entrepreneurs start their business they quickly discover that you either do nothing or you, as sure as the sun going

down, break some law, regulation or instruction, often unknown to you, unpublished or unpublisized, serving nothing but the purpose of
separating the men from the boys or Gods from humans, and yet, one that you might be severely punished for violating.
Thus, the first thing a Russian entrepreneur thinks about is a krysha, which means ''roof'' in Russian. (Note that we just discovered
that in the West it is the law that is supposed to play the role of the roof, but in Russia, where there is no law, one has to look elsewhere for
a roof over one's head). Krysha is a person or an organization that can protect you from trouble as you do business. For that, your krysha
usually demands a share of profit and often exercises at least some control over the business.
In the West, the role of krysha is played by your in-house legal counsel, by your law firm, and by the body of law under which you do
business, by the civil society in which you live. As you will see, Russian krysha is "a bit different" from your average Western law firm.
Krysha is supposed to be able to protect you from assault and racket, take care of your personal security, negotiate on your behalf,
pay bribes or exchange favors, intimidate witnesses, and make whistleblowers think twice.
There are two types of krysha: First, there are kryshas connected to the state, and their purpose
is to bend laws in your favor. This krysha might be a policeman or government official who could intervene should an investigation be
started against you, that is, a policeman or government official acting illegally in an unofficial capacity.
Then there is a criminal krysha, one that protects you by sheer force: a mafia grouping or gang of criminals whose weapon is
intimidation. Opinion as to which of the two is better in this role, the
government connection or the mafia, varies, and most people try to have both. But there is one question on which the opinion is
unanimous: krysha is by far the most important aspect of your business. Many Russian businessmen proudly tell you with whom they do
"business" within the first minutes of conversation. And not just small or medium businessmen: the largest ones, too.
Imagine what life would be like if the biggest bank of California were the Cool Bank which had red business cards because this is the
Bloods' color, and that bank would fight for control of the entire banking sector against the Blue Bank of the Crips. And yet, this is the situation
in Russia today. If the bank does not like you, it doesn't sue you, it gets the hoods to break your headlights first, and then it gets you shot.
If you do not have a krysha, you cannot do anything and are totally exposed: even the law can get you, to say nothing of those who
can really get you. But if you do have a krysha, you are breaking the law, placing yourself outside of it, either hiding underground below it or
flying above it. This places you firmly in the realm of the informal and vague, the realm that is extra-legal, and yet, the only realm in which
things happen here. There just ain't no tradin' here unless it's insider. And then, you ain't got no krysha against your own krysha, and that
matters very much, especially if your krysha is a bandit that has killed 20
20 Page 21 22
21
before and is ready to do so again. The relationship with your krysha is very important to you, but at the same time it makes you a part of the
network, thereby severely restricting your freedom. It is not only in extraordinary circumstances that you need your
krysha, such as when you have a problem with the law. Your krysha is indispensable in your routine, day-to-day business activities. It is
according to your krysha that your partners decide whether or not to fulfill the contracts that they have with you, it is according to your
krysha that the other mafias decide whether or not you should be subjected to extortion, and it is your krysha that, in a court of law,
plays a major role in determining your guilt or innocence, as well as your sentence. If you have a business dispute, it is not just you, but a
representative of your krysha that attends the negotiations with you. Furthermore, more often than not, you and your business adversary
both wait in the lobby while representatives of your krysha and his talk your business situation over!

A definition: Krysha is an informal personal relationship with such person or persons that are seen as being able to protect one from
trouble by placing one in an extra-legal environment, the only environment where one, normally restrained by laws and regulations,
often created solely in order to restrain, could act. Thus, krysha primarily means protection from that which impedes one's initiative,
and, coming close second after criminal extortion, it is the law that is seen as a major impediment. But the extra-legal environment (i