5 ms·

What social changes do they need to make? Things are better now for them than they were the last time Westerners went in trying to remold Russia in their own im

What social changes do they need to make? Things are better now for them than they were the last time Westerners went in trying to remold Russia in their own image.

trilbyglens 2y ago
The thing is, Russians are deeply uncomfortable with actual democratic openness. Read about the reactions of normal people to watching televised political debates in the 90s. It inspired pure panic, as people had never seen anything but utter certainty from their leaders. Perhaps it's changed a bit now, but I really really doubt it. Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit At which point a monarchy makes sense. Dictatorships are unstable. They tie the fate of an immortal nation to the mortal whims and needs of a man. We came up with monarchy as a solution to this problem, and then swept it away when the modern republic was invented. But republics aren't for everyone. Democracy requires compromise, and staring the uncertain and unknowable honestly in the eye. It may be high time that we admit that some populations prefer the certainty of autocracy. And within the domain of autocracy, the time-tested model is heridatory constitutional monarchy.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    Russians were open for open liberal reforms and to become part of the EU and Western world. People were sick of Communist rule and praised US culture. The problem is that US/EU betrayed liebral reforms in Russia with the goal of dismantling the state. USA supported liberal reforms in Central Europe/Warsaw pact countries like Hungary Romania Poland where shock therapy provided transition from communist economy to liberal market economy, and their currency was supported by the IMF/WB/US from severe shocks. US literally lent money to Central European countries to ease their transition and not kill their economies. https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhecby8hbwls8r9gems https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhec... According to Jeff Sachs, the author of shock therapy in Poland, the same shock therapy was prescribed to Russia, but no support was provided. Russian liberal reforms were betrayed by USA. Which led to severe currency and economic crisis. Crisis led to garage sale of all state assets and privatization by foreign financial groups (oligarchs), which created a very deep sense of unfairness among Russians. This led to ascencion of Putin as he returned some of that unfairly privatized property from oligarchs
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    I think you're missing the biggest strengths/weaknesses of the two systems. The biggest strength of autocracy is the ability to be more long-sighted. Democracy, taken to it's natural extremes, leads to a system where you have representatives spending most of their time in office planning for the next election, which is to say fund raising and focusing on things that'll pay-off before the next election cycle. So you get an obsession on the very short-term stuff, and a tendency to trend towards oligarchy (though Plato would claim it trends to tyranny). But the problem with autocracy (that monarchy only exasperates) is that a single bad leader can undo generations of achievements of skilled leaders. Aurelius was one of the wisest and most capable leaders to have lived. His only son was one of the worst. Democracy's weakness is it's strength there - even the most inept (or perhaps senile) leader can't do that much and they'll be out of office in a few years anyhow. ---- Also, as I seem to end up debating with you in these little geopol threads often enough - let us hold one another to our predictions. Told ya on South Korea. ;)
    - monkeyfun 2y ago
      And now as a random reader 7 hours later -- surely you must share that post/prediction with others! I'm too curious and your comment history is fairly dense.
      - ANewFormation 2y ago
        It was in the midst of the 'Korean crisis' about 30 days ago. We were initially debating on what would happen. My debate partner was under the might makes right pov, and felt that a person in power defacto declaring themselves dictator was sufficient to enact such, regardless of their popularity, particularly when reasonably enabled by law. I was arguing that autocracy, in spite of lack of accountability, generally cannot sustain itself without relatively broad support. Once it became clear that South Korea was in no mood to let an unpopular man declare himself dictator, we then debated his fate. I predicted death/imprisonment (as is practically a tradition in South Korean politics) while my debate partner was expecting him to get away scot-free, impeached at worst, arguing that no laws were broken in the President's attempt.
  - benterix 2y ago
    But Russia already tried monarchy and it didn't end too well, for similar reasons it ended in France - arrogant rulers not caring for their people.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      What do you mean by not caring for their people? Louis XVI had a weak but what we would call progressive reign. Louis enacted religious tolerance, abolished imprisonment without trial, and abolished letters de cachet which subjected the monarchy edicts to approval of regional parliaments.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Russia already tried monarchy and it didn't end too well They also tried democracy and failed wholly at that. Russia tried monarchy as an empire and with an absolute ruler. Something like the Kuwaiti monarchy might suit them better. Though I’m not sure it works since the modern Russian state sort of remains an empire, something made clear by their conscription discrepancies between Moscow and peripheries.
- konart 2y ago
  >Russians are deeply uncomfortable with actual democratic openness >It inspired pure panic, as people had never seen anything but utter certainty from their leaders Russians are not uncomfortable with actual democratic openness. There were periods in Russian history when actual democratic openness was an option. Right before the USSR formation and around 1990s The problem is that after 1991 you've got a few generations of people who are used to ussr socialism and its ways and guarantees. You can't expect people to switch from one way of thinking to the other. The state had beed paying them all their lives. Sometime only because they had some kind of job at all. Many of them developed an addiction to their "salary for existence". You can't go and tell them that starting tommorow they will have to compete on a market that is yet to be build. And that the whole new shiny system like that of the West will be functional 2-3 decades later. And right after they were playing (from their perspective) the same game waiting for the communism.

What social changes do they need to make? Things are better now for them than they were the last time Westerners went in trying to remold Russia in their own image.

trilbyglens 2y ago

The thing is, Russians are deeply uncomfortable with actual democratic openness. Read about the reactions of normal people to watching televised political debates in the 90s. It inspired pure panic, as people had never seen anything but utter certainty from their leaders. Perhaps it's changed a bit now, but I really really doubt it. Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit At which point a monarchy makes sense. Dictatorships are unstable. They tie the fate of an immortal nation to the mortal whims and needs of a man. We came up with monarchy as a solution to this problem, and then swept it away when the modern republic was invented. But republics aren't for everyone. Democracy requires compromise, and staring the uncertain and unknowable honestly in the eye. It may be high time that we admit that some populations prefer the certainty of autocracy. And within the domain of autocracy, the time-tested model is heridatory constitutional monarchy.
- slt2021 2y ago
  Russians were open for open liberal reforms and to become part of the EU and Western world. People were sick of Communist rule and praised US culture. The problem is that US/EU betrayed liebral reforms in Russia with the goal of dismantling the state. USA supported liberal reforms in Central Europe/Warsaw pact countries like Hungary Romania Poland where shock therapy provided transition from communist economy to liberal market economy, and their currency was supported by the IMF/WB/US from severe shocks. US literally lent money to Central European countries to ease their transition and not kill their economies. https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhecby8hbwls8r9gems https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhec... According to Jeff Sachs, the author of shock therapy in Poland, the same shock therapy was prescribed to Russia, but no support was provided. Russian liberal reforms were betrayed by USA. Which led to severe currency and economic crisis. Crisis led to garage sale of all state assets and privatization by foreign financial groups (oligarchs), which created a very deep sense of unfairness among Russians. This led to ascencion of Putin as he returned some of that unfairly privatized property from oligarchs
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  I think you're missing the biggest strengths/weaknesses of the two systems. The biggest strength of autocracy is the ability to be more long-sighted. Democracy, taken to it's natural extremes, leads to a system where you have representatives spending most of their time in office planning for the next election, which is to say fund raising and focusing on things that'll pay-off before the next election cycle. So you get an obsession on the very short-term stuff, and a tendency to trend towards oligarchy (though Plato would claim it trends to tyranny). But the problem with autocracy (that monarchy only exasperates) is that a single bad leader can undo generations of achievements of skilled leaders. Aurelius was one of the wisest and most capable leaders to have lived. His only son was one of the worst. Democracy's weakness is it's strength there - even the most inept (or perhaps senile) leader can't do that much and they'll be out of office in a few years anyhow. ---- Also, as I seem to end up debating with you in these little geopol threads often enough - let us hold one another to our predictions. Told ya on South Korea. ;)
  - monkeyfun 2y ago
    And now as a random reader 7 hours later -- surely you must share that post/prediction with others! I'm too curious and your comment history is fairly dense.
    - ANewFormation 2y ago
      It was in the midst of the 'Korean crisis' about 30 days ago. We were initially debating on what would happen. My debate partner was under the might makes right pov, and felt that a person in power defacto declaring themselves dictator was sufficient to enact such, regardless of their popularity, particularly when reasonably enabled by law. I was arguing that autocracy, in spite of lack of accountability, generally cannot sustain itself without relatively broad support. Once it became clear that South Korea was in no mood to let an unpopular man declare himself dictator, we then debated his fate. I predicted death/imprisonment (as is practically a tradition in South Korean politics) while my debate partner was expecting him to get away scot-free, impeached at worst, arguing that no laws were broken in the President's attempt.
- benterix 2y ago
  But Russia already tried monarchy and it didn't end too well, for similar reasons it ended in France - arrogant rulers not caring for their people.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    What do you mean by not caring for their people? Louis XVI had a weak but what we would call progressive reign. Louis enacted religious tolerance, abolished imprisonment without trial, and abolished letters de cachet which subjected the monarchy edicts to approval of regional parliaments.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Russia already tried monarchy and it didn't end too well They also tried democracy and failed wholly at that. Russia tried monarchy as an empire and with an absolute ruler. Something like the Kuwaiti monarchy might suit them better. Though I’m not sure it works since the modern Russian state sort of remains an empire, something made clear by their conscription discrepancies between Moscow and peripheries.
konart 2y ago
>Russians are deeply uncomfortable with actual democratic openness >It inspired pure panic, as people had never seen anything but utter certainty from their leaders Russians are not uncomfortable with actual democratic openness. There were periods in Russian history when actual democratic openness was an option. Right before the USSR formation and around 1990s The problem is that after 1991 you've got a few generations of people who are used to ussr socialism and its ways and guarantees. You can't expect people to switch from one way of thinking to the other. The state had beed paying them all their lives. Sometime only because they had some kind of job at all. Many of them developed an addiction to their "salary for existence". You can't go and tell them that starting tommorow they will have to compete on a market that is yet to be build. And that the whole new shiny system like that of the West will be functional 2-3 decades later. And right after they were playing (from their perspective) the same game waiting for the communism.