Posted on 03/04/2022 12:17:02 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
Both supporters and critics of the Putin regime often say his regime lacks an ideology. Aleksandr Podrabinek is only the latest to make that point...But historian Irina Pavlova says the regime does have an ideology: “traditional Russian great power (velikoderzhaviye), cleansed of communism and dressed up in Orthodox clothing.”
The majority of the Russian population accepts the idea that Russia must be a great power regardless of the price, because it is surrounded by enemies, Ms. Pavlova says. Indeed, one can say that “if you ‘scratch’ a Russian, you will find a great power chauvinist.” Russians are ready to “talk for hours” about the greatness of Russia and its power, she says.
This is a fait accompli, and it won’t be significantly changed if it is adopted as a formal ideological platform, the historian continues. Attachment to the core ideas of great power “unites the powers, the elite, the people of Russia and also a significant part of progressive society” elsewhere.
This idea has its roots in the 16th century idea of Moscow as “the third Rome.” Over time, “this idea was transformed into an ideology” and now has taken the form of what may be called “Russian fundamentalism,” whose followers accept without question four key notions without asking that they be proven..
(Excerpt) Read more at ukrweekly.com ...
They’re super communist in the eastern Ukraine regions.
Putin says this is a fight between Soviets and Nazis.
Putin is a ruthless evil dictator using murderous fascist tactics to hold power.
Send in Putin’s dogs of fascist Jihad.
A third world country with first world nukes.
...and conquer territory.
That was Richard Pipes’s thesis, that Russia has, for the past 600 years, through various ideological veneers, been essentially an empire led by glory hounds who went out of fashion in the West (and maybe Japan) after WWII:
Pipes is known for arguing that the origins of the Soviet Union can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th-century Muscovy, in a Russian version of the Sonderweg thesis. In Pipes’ opinion, Muscovy differed from every other State in Europe in that it had no concept of private property, and that everything was regarded as the property of the Grand Duke/Tsar. In Pipes’ view, this separate path undertaken by Russia (possibly under Mongol influence) ensured that Russia would be an autocratic state with values fundamentally dissimilar from those of Western civilization. Pipes argued that this “patrimonialism” of Imperial Russia started to break down when Russian leaders attempted to modernize in the 19th century, without seeking to change the basic “patrimonial” structure of Russian society. In Pipes’s opinion, this separate course undertaken by Russia over the centuries made Russia uniquely open to revolution in 1917. Pipes strongly criticized the values of the radical intelligentsia of late Imperial Russia for what he sees as their fanaticism and inability to accept reality. Pipes stressed that the Soviet Union was an expansionist, totalitarian state bent on world conquest.[20] He is also known for the thesis that, contrary to many traditional histories of the Soviet Union at the time, the October Revolution was, rather than a popular general uprising, a coup foisted upon the majority of the Russian population by a tiny segment of the population driven by a select group of intellectuals who subsequently established a one-party dictatorship that was intolerant and repressive from the start.[21]
In what was meant to be an “off-the-record” interview, Pipes told Reuters in March 1981 that “Soviet leaders would have to choose between peacefully changing their Communist system in the direction followed by the West or going to war. There is no other alternative and it could go either way – Détente is dead.” Pipes also stated in the interview that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany was susceptible to pressure from the Soviets. It was learned independently that Pipes was the official who spoke to Reuters. This potentially jeopardized Pipes’ job. The White House and the “incensed” State Department issued statements repudiating Pipes’ statements.[22]
In 1992, Pipes served as an expert witness in the Constitutional Court of Russia’s trial of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[23]]
“Send in Putin’s dogs of fascist Jihad.”
Commie jihadists.
Thank you for posting.
So, Communism was their way out of Feudalism, but without private property ownership, if I understand correctly. In the end, an industrial feudalism?
I highly recommend reading Paul Goble’s article in full. He is America’s leading expert on the various ethnic groups within Russia and the former USSR. He does not deal in balder-dash or wokeness.
“Putin says this is a fight between Soviets and Nazis.”
And it’s ironic, because Putin is more of a fascist (NAZI) than a communist (Soviet).
[So, Communism was their way out of Feudalism, but without private property ownership, if I understand correctly. In the end, an industrial feudalism?]
Thank you
Which is ironic because when viewed rationally, there really isn't much difference. One totalitarian despot smells much the same as another regardless of the fancy terms you use.
“And it’s ironic, because Putin is more of a fascist (NAZI) than a communist (Soviet).”
All socialists. All dictatorial.
The labels and distinctions and definitions blur and change over time.
The whole objective in invading the Ukraine is to reassert themselves as a major power (as well as steal Ukraine's assets), even to the extent of threatening to use nukes - but all it has done so far is show that Russia is still inadequate, despite their best propagandists working overtime.
Excellent undestanding an analysis!
They are indeed both totalitarian. The difference is with the ownership or control of economic production. Thus, Putin in more of a fascist than a communist.
“All socialists. All dictatorial.”
That is true. The difference is with the ownership and control of economic production.
Thank you. I was referring to this:
“Pipes is known for arguing that the origins of the Soviet Union can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th-century Muscovy, in a Russian version of the Sonderweg thesis. In Pipes’ opinion, Muscovy differed from every other State in Europe in that it had no concept of private property, and that everything was regarded as the property of the Grand Duke/Tsar.”
This sounded like Feudalism, to me. Where the West developed a merchant class upon leaving feudalism, this area of Russia retained a two class system with no one really owning property. At least that was my take.
You are right that this seeming “system” was sold by a minority as a national solution and might as well have been witchcraft, for all they cared. But I was fascinated by the origins of what was being pushed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.