Better than in living memory, since the last man who actually remembered life in Russia died, like my Grandfather, in the 1980's. His memories were fond ones, and he was a barefooted factory apprentice in the Urals. He told me, simply, that all the talk about industrial tension, class struggle etc was pure bullsh-t.
However, by a proper historical standard -- comparing Russia of the first decade and a half of 20 c. to other European powers at that time, -- Russia looks far better then than it does today in the same comparison. Moreover, inlike West Europe, it was a country of rapid growth. If the rate of growth in pre-war Russia were to continue for another generation, rather than wrecked by the revolutions, it would have been a leading power in Europe by mid-century. This is an introductory text: Russia Botched Entire Century
The idea that Russia was a backwards country in need of some fixing is a bolshevik propaganda on one hand, and among the serious people it is an aftereffect of rapid growth diluted over a period starting too early (e.g. 1860) to capture the reality. In America, the notion of poor poorly governed Russia is a product of guilt over the support of the Communist regime and the natural for America aversion to monarchy.
the local government tradition goes back to the 1860s and the last tsar wasn't much of a fan of parliamentary government and constitutions.
That is all correct, however, the tradition of local government as such goes back to the Middle Age (Zemsky Sobor). The Romanovs were themselves a product of a popular election. That the Tsar dismissed the Duma was actually a good move and shows the preferability of monarchy to a democratic republic where such move would not be possible. What we had in Russia at the time as a productive cooperation of the democratic and monarchic principles. It was that functioning, living and breathing popular monarchism that was hated by the international left,-- precisely because it was successful economically, -- and ultimately they succeeded in destroying it in 1917.
I understand however, that it is not exactly the topic on hand. I just want to clarify my earlier statements, so that we both have a proper historiosophical background to Putin.
If dictatorship is still a real prospect maybe Putin is the least of evils.
Some form of dictatorship would be welcome. What Russia needs is a nationalist government focused on preserving and rebuilding specifically the Russian nation and culture, and what remains of the Russian economy. Any democratic system in Russia today will be immediately infected by the old boys of the dormant KGB apparatus, so an unpopular measure of lustrating the KGB ties would have to be taken for Russia to succeed in anything. The free enterprise system in Russia is corrupted by the same class, the Komsomol leaders of the 70's and 80's who are now at the peak of power and push their second generation of parasites forward.
The bottom line is that indeed Russian Federation is all-through socially conservative, whereas the West is torn between liberalism and tradition. However, in RF today the conservatism is not natural conservatism of a healthy nation, but a acid reflux from the conservatism of the Soviet era autocracy. It is not a genuine article. The same forces that today clamor for, for example, criminalization of mutually-consented homosexuality are the people who just as easily would ban all political dissent, free artistic expression, and generally will re-institute the USSR in all its aspects save, perhaps, doctrinaire marxism.
You could draw closer parallels between the tsarist regime itself or the German Empire of the Kaiser or the British or French Empires and states like Russia or China (or the US?) today than to those governments and 20th century totalitarianisms.
No, I think that the world of pre-1914 is gone forever. It is not even the same people: not the same Germans and not the same Russians. These two nations have been by and large destroyed. Well, the Germans may yet survive, but to say that RF today is somehow similar to historical Russia is grossly off the mark.
If the rate of growth in pre-war Russia were to continue for another generation, rather than wrecked by the revolutions, it would have been a leading power in Europe by mid-century.
Discontent, though, is subjective. Countries that by objective measures are advancing quite rapidly may be very turbulent, first because change can be unsettling, and second because expectations grow faster than they can be satisfied.
Some form of dictatorship would be welcome. What Russia needs is a nationalist government focused on preserving and rebuilding specifically the Russian nation and culture, and what remains of the Russian economy.
That sounds like Solzhenitsyn's idea. It made some sense 30 years ago when the Communists were still in power. I'm not sure it does today. Russian is in the position of any number of countries around the world today where remnants of old dictatorships still have influence.
I don't know what advice I'd give, but returning to dictatorship isn't what I'd suggest. All the more so, since the same left-over Communist interests would worm their way into any regime. Also, any intelligent regime would make enough use of nationalist themes to satisfy a public that doesn't want major political changes. I suspect countries in Russia's position will mostly just muddle through the transition as best they can.
Any democratic system in Russia today will be immediately infected by the old boys of the dormant KGB apparatus, so an unpopular measure of lustrating the KGB ties would have to be taken for Russia to succeed in anything. The free enterprise system in Russia is corrupted by the same class, the Komsomol leaders of the 70's and 80's who are now at the peak of power and push their second generation of parasites forward.
For that very reason, it's not going to happen. Or at least not until the remaining KGBniks are very old. And as I said, the same leftover Communist forces and individual you deplore would probably make headway under any system.
The bottom line is that indeed Russian Federation is all-through socially conservative, whereas the West is torn between liberalism and tradition. However, in RF today the conservatism is not natural conservatism of a healthy nation, but a acid reflux from the conservatism of the Soviet era autocracy. It is not a genuine article. The same forces that today clamor for, for example, criminalization of mutually-consented homosexuality are the people who just as easily would ban all political dissent, free artistic expression, and generally will re-institute the USSR in all its aspects save, perhaps, doctrinaire Marxism.
I'd agree with that. I don't have any great enthusiasm for Putin or his government. My concern was just to say that the world today is very different from what it was at the height of the Cold War.
I would say, though, that at some point, the pendulum in Russia and Eastern Europe will swing back and -- for better or worse -- many Western fashions and ideas will be adopted. There may be more resistance in the East and Eastern Europe may exert a beneficial influence on the West, but I don't see Russia forever holding out against what one might call Western decadence.
No, I think that the world of pre-1914 is gone forever. It is not even the same people: not the same Germans and not the same Russians. These two nations have been by and large destroyed. Well, the Germans may yet survive, but to say that RF today is somehow similar to historical Russia is grossly off the mark.
Of course it's not a literal return to the ancien regime, but the world today is more about economics and power politics than about a struggle of ideologies. The aristocracies are gone. So are the Western European imperial powers. Britain and France don't have the clout they once did.
But in terms of their position in the world and their aspirations, Russia or China today has more in common with the empires of 1914 than with the ideologically inspired powers that replaced them. Even our own position in the world today may have features similar to that of the British Empire a century ago. The situation is different from what it was 50 or 70 years ago.