5 ms·
There is such an idea of a greater connection between Slavic nations called Pan-Slavism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
by stared 5y ago
There is such an idea of a greater connection between Slavic nations called Pan-Slavism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism).
When it comes to "one country" - the USSR aimed at that, and from the perspective of hundreds of millions of people, it wasn't the best idea.
Plus, I think that ethnic states are one of the worst inventions of the 19th century, which accelerated a lot after WWI & WWII. I prefer cities where e.g. 1/3 were Polish, 1/3 German, and 1/3 Jewish (as for my pre-war hometown) rather than monoliths. Even in the middle ages, cities had multiple languages and cultures (e.g. German-speaking for trading cities in Slavic and Baltic countries). Right now, even in many multicultural cities, it is often implicitly assumed that there is the "default language" and an ethnic/national/cultural majority.
- ajuc 5y agoThe problem with panslavism is that Russians would have majority, and Russian states were almost always authoritharian and oppressive.
- wheelerof4te 5y agoWe had rather brutal monarchies in the West, too. Colonialism was not altruistic trip around the globe. Almost all former European monarchies, from England to Belgium, were authoritarian imperialistic countries.
- ajuc 5y agoThere're different levels of authoritarianism and Russia was usually at the far end. Especially compared to the other Slavic countries it annexed like Novogrod Republic of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which had parliaments and elections in 1500s. But even compared to the absolutist monarchies of the west Russia was more authoritarian. For example serfdom was only abolished in Russia in 1861.
- krzyk 5y agoDon't look so far the the west, you have an example of non authoritarian monarchies in central Europe (e.g. Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth where you had a second constitution in the world, just after the US one, a parliament).
- Zickzack 5y agoThe Ukraine offers the Orlyk constitution from 1710. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- stared 5y agoThere is a continuous history of autocratic rulers, Tzars named one way or another. And an as long history of dissidents. Yet, this idea would be dangerous even with very different cultures - vide "Ein Reich".
- blip54321 5y agoLet's bring back to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, only under a more inclusive name. Russia wasn't always authoritarian, though. Before the Mongols, it was a bunch of independent, freedom-loving cities. Sort of like the American Wild West. I feel like we need a new experiment in inclusive governance, and that Slavic countries are the place to do it.
- unsigner 5y agoYep, it’s the Three Seas Initiative. Bring it on! We’ll take on board some non-Slavic speakers from Hungary, the Baltics, Romania, and Albania.
- blip54321 5y agoThat's a great name for the new entity. Three seas works well in Slavic languages, and is neutral. Austria should be replaced by Ukraine and Moldova, though. Austria definitely doesn't belong. Ukraine and Poland really do belong together. Ukraine is more faithful to traditional Polish culture than Poland. Poland westernized a lot since joining the EU and NATO, and Ukranian cultural influence would be awesome. Conversely, Ukraine could use some economic assistance, where Poland's economy has exploded, for much the same reason of NATO/EU.
- int_19h 5y agoPolish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was hardly exemplar, either, given the state of the peasants there, and religious persecution of non-Catholics. Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a better model, IMO - a state with a Lithuanian pagan ruler, and a mix of pagan, Catholic, and Orthodox elites and population all living together.
- blip54321 5y agoLet's break this down piece-by-piece. (1) The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had elected kings and a parliament. It was a republic to the same degree as Rome or some of the more democratic Greek city-states. The only people who could vote were nobles, but nobles were about 10% of the population. That's about on-par with with Athens or the Roman Empire. Even in the US, only white landowners could vote when it was first founded. That's not too dissimilar from the Polish nobility. (2) Jews emigrated to the Commonwealth from all over Europe for better treatment. Good treatment? No. Better treatment? Without a doubt. The Commonwealth wasn't a modern enlightened democracy, but this was 1600, not 1900. It did incredibly well for 1600.
- wheelerof4te 5y agoUSSR was a blasphemy because of it's communist nature. It was an abomination born in blood. Slavs were never for communism.
- medo-bear 5y ago> Slavs were never for communism i disagree to some extent. historically slavic culture tends to be much more communal than rest of europe. even in eu you can see this manifested in thr resistance to liberalism that comes from all (?) slavic countries
- posix_me_less 5y agoWhat does resistance to liberalism manifest about being more communal or communist? Is resistance to privatisation a "resistance to liberalism" or "communist"? I don't think so. It is nationalistic, conservative and social democratic.
- asta123 5y agoI think Slavs historically tended more towards decentralized structure. So maybe communal in a small community structure.
- orthecreedence 5y agoDecentralized structures and communism are not mutually exclusive.
- mleonhard 5y agoWas the economic structure of USSR the real problem? I thought it was the power structure (dictatorship) and general lack of accountability of management.
- vkou 5y agoThe economic structure wasn't great, but people can disagree as to whether it was due to the power structure (a militarism and imperialism-obsessed dictatorship), and how much of it due to the fundamental problems of... The weird, state-capitalism flavour of 'communism' that was used in practice in the second world. Then you get into no true Scottsman arguments about what is, and what isn't communism, and whether or not state capitalism is guaranteed to be a failure, or whether it was state capitalism, as practiced by the Eastern Block is guaranteed to be a failure. And then you can further split hairs as to whether or not having some aspects of state capitalism in your economy are better than having no aspects of it, and where the optimal line is. And then you find that you've wasted hours of time arguing, but haven't actually convinced anyone, or learned anything new.
- syntaxfree 5y agoHave you read Vilem Flusser’s Bodenlos?
- desireco42 5y agoI think single language would be wonderful and Interslavic sounds really good to me (btw. Serbian). The one country thing, I think USSR made it unpalatable, but a lot of conflicts would not be happening if there was some construct that allow simpler work and life in Slavic worls. Something like EU, without bureaucracy, maybe just rule that people can cross countries easier and live and work. I don't think it would be problem of Russians being the most numerous, as long as people would use Interslavic in communication and be able to travel and work more easily.
- Claude_Shannon 5y agoAnd the issue that Panslavism inheritently supposes Russians to be the protectors of other Slavic nations. Thank you, we had enough of their "help".