Reading about russian history, it's weird to see how autocracy is deeply rooted in this country. Russia was in terrible state after the Rurik dynasty died, and only got better under the total control of the emperor, the contrast with Poland who weaker and weaker is quite striking. The changes always come from the government, but even the emperors willing to reform Russia (like Peter the great or Alexander I never considered to limite their own power, safe for Alexander II. Even after the revolution of 1917, Russia quickly discarded marxism and went with total autocracy with Stalin. Even today with Putin it seems Russia has never left autocracy.
Why Russia is like that ? And can we really talk about "permanence" of structures in history ?
The distance between their cities and cultural centers was far too great to allow it's people and rulers great to form a cohesive and fully unified nation for many centuries.
They're also very domineering people who prefer a stern but stable government to a decentralized democratic haven.
Isaiah Lewis
Cause Russia is massive and sparsely populated. you kind of need an autocrat to make it all work. History has also shown that autocracy has led to Russian stability and (relative) success, so people are more willing to accept it. For instance, look at the socio-economic disaster that was the Yeltsin era compared to Putin (in particular his first decade) You could also make a connection to Orthodox Christianity and how beliefs correlate to having a strong authority figure/state
Evan Thompson
>muh orthodoxy that teaches to have a dictator as opposed to muh catolicism and muh protestantism that teach about democracy you're an idiot and also your eltsyn/putin example is shit
Matthew Cooper
Protestantism is very tied to democracy modern democracy is heavily based on protestant, especially Calvinist thought.
Catholicism is aristocratic first and foremost.
Justin Kelly
>muh protestantism that teach about democracy Rousseau literally based his ideas on calvinist communities in Switzerland.
Adrian White
Strong leaders were practically given a cart blanche to unfuck the country. Russia needed unfucking quite a few times since the Mongols.
Parker Cook
Not at all, Yeltsin's era was an utter disaster.
Jeremiah King
what did Putin do that was so great in comparison to Yeltsin?
Could it be argued that Putin's success comes largely from rising Oil revenues?
Lucas Parker
Oil prices have been in the pits for a while now and Putin is doing fine. So, it seems reasonable to say while oil revenue helped he is also talented/capable. >what did Putin do that was so great in comparison to Yeltsin? Putin reigned in the oligarchs as much as he could who were basically looting the country and would have probably torn the country apart in political power plays. Think balkanization with an oligarch on top in each new shard of ex-Russia.
There also seems to be what looks like an attempt to establish a 'government official' social class that is separate from businessmen, etc. presumably, that class would then have values instilled into it to help fight corruption, etc. If this proves to be a thing, that would be a massive achievement of Putin's in terms of impact on the future of Russia. Emphasis on family structure mabye plays into this. In a family in Russia it is accepted that a single head rules the home and the family members support the head for the benefit of all. It is natural to apply a similar system on a state level. It provides a frame-work that people can understand on an instinctual level and unite behind and unity is strength often-times and strength matters.
Kevin Murphy
Catholicism has nothing to do with democracy, and Orthodoxy has nothing to do with dictatorship. It's more that the Byzantine legacy of strong centralized leadership, not the religion itself.
Alexander Wood
>the contrast with Poland Russia was - and still partly is - part of the Turanian civilization circle. >Polish philosopher Feliks Koneczny claimed the existence of a distinctive Turanian civilization, encompassing both Turkic and some Slavs, such as Russians. This civilization's hallmark is militarism, anti-intellectualism and an absolute obedience to the ruler. Koneczny saw this civilization as inherently inferior to Latin (Western European) civilization. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan#Ideology Poland is part of the Latin civilisational circle since 966. The Commonwealth was heavily influenced by Romans and the Greeks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
Alexander Gutierrez
>Byzantine legacy you mean Mongol horde?
Cooper Morgan
90s Russia was Wild West riddled by rampant crime (that didn't exist in SU times), extreme poverty (that didn't exist in SU times), and oligarchs making their country and media their playground in a dick measuring contests
One can be argued economy and subsequent "schock therapy" measure led to millions of deaths
it was an asylum led by a drunk with health problems
compare that to Putin who projects strength and stability
Ian Watson
His administration has basically turned a decaying, post-Soviet society into a world power in less than twenty-five years of time and no, most of his success stems from the proclamation of Russian amnesty, complete reformation of the political and administrative structure and elimination of a multitude of men who've presented an obstacle to Russia' impending development and return to the geopolitical stage.
>Russia was - and still partly is - part of the Turanian civilization circle
Then why is the Russian contribution in the fields of science, arts and especially literature significantly greater than that of Poland?
Also, misquoting a philosopher like Koneczny isn't doing him any justice at all.
The legacy of the Mongol horde can only be truly seen in their military organisation and behavior towards dissent.
Matthew White
Forgot the source, but an old Russian WWII vet said something to the effect of >If there is no tight grip over the Russian people, they will scatter Funny that an old school red army conscript agrees that the Russian people need an authoritarian figure
Context was how Stalin deemed any POW a traitor to Russia. He accepted this and worked in labor camps for awhile, working his ass off to shrug off the shame of being a coward, even though he fought in the most brutal war in history
Jayden Cook
yeah no, they're less influenced by a power which held them as a loyal client state for a hundred years and raised them from obscurity to fill the void they left behind than a power which didn't even exist during the time Moscow was anything more than a trade outpost
makes sense, Moscow is the third Rome after all, they only dressed like Kazakhs because it was cold
Josiah Collins
They've been dressing like that even before they've come in contact with the Mongols.It's true that Moscow wasn't as important as Novgorod or as rich as Kiev, but you're sorely misled if you believe that a predominately illiterate and nomadic could've raised anyone from obscurity, let alone one of the bigger Russian city-states.
Camden Watson
>Then why is the Russian contribution in the fields of science, arts and especially literature significantly greater than that of Poland? Ehh...
David Thompson
Even if that's so, how does that invalidate my argument?
Jose Reed
Eastern Europeans worry about instability and war a lot more than westerners. That's why we have an inclination to prefer autocratic governments, so long as they achieve what we want. That's why Horthy isn't necessarily hated in Hungary, yes there were death squads but said death squads killed a ton of criminals, Communists, and dissenters. The country itself was doing well, until Hitler fucked everything up for Europe.
Eli Lewis
>Eastern Europeans worry about instability and war a lot more than westerners. That's why we have an inclination to prefer autocratic governments, so long as they achieve what we want. Yeah. I think that's also why we like Vlad the Impaler so much, and why western chroniclers tend to empathise the sadistic torturer part, while romanian, bulgarian and russian ones are like "he was a tough guy that kept his country independent". Sure, he was a violent, murderous psycopath, but he fought the turks(via killing, terror and torture), fought internal corruption(via killing, torture and terror), and limited noble power(you know the drill). So yeah, he wasn't a nice dude, but he kept his murderlust mostly directed towards the assholes that were fucking the little guys, and so people were glad when he got back on the throne.
Jack Thomas
>famous polish scientists
>famous russian scientists
Carson Perry
Maria Składowska-Curie is more famous than any Russian scientist. An whats you'r point? Isn't Russia militarist and ruler-oriented?
Cameron Robinson
>Eastern Europeans worry about instability and war a lot more than westerners. Is that a hold over from the past or something else?
Michael Torres
>it's a Westerners who had barely 200 years of continuity of liberal democracy make pretend they weren't just as autocratic for most of their history episode
Austin Moore
More famous than e.g. Mendeleev?
I don't think so.
Easton Long
> Why Russia is like that ? Just look on the map, Russia is basically Moscow and satellites. Centralization of power is very high, for one historical reason or the other.
Alexander Torres
> that would be a massive achievement of Putin's Bureaucracy was strong in the USSR and it was strong even before it in the Russian Empire, so I wouldn't call that a "massive" achievement. Just restoration of what was already here, for literally centuries.
Kayden Long
She is four times more famous user. Copernicus is more famous than both of them, anyway.
Nolan Bennett
There's a book about this called the Kremlin conspiracy. It's about how Russia has always been an expansionist autocratic state
Carson Martinez
Just because they're not publicized as much as yours are doesn't mitigate their expertise and overall contribution.
So, fame equates contribution?
Zuse is more famous than Atanasoff and yet the latter is infinitely more responsible for the invention of digital electronic computing.
Dominic Green
> So, fame equates contribution? Obviously not, I just corrected you about Mendeleev not being as famous as you think he is.
Josiah Lopez
Oh i see what you mean now.
Yes, she is a woman so all the women have hoisted her up as some sort of example of women not being retarded and so made her more famous.
Just 'lol'. Whatever.
Luke Rogers
The credit isn't entirely due to Putin. Belarus is acting as a smuggler essentially to counteract the stuff trade restrictions placed upon Russia, like fish and some electronics
Nathaniel Nguyen
Well, her story about dying from radiation is more interesting than Mendeleev one... about how he is literally seen his table in his dreams, kek. It is all about who can meme better, when you are in the stage where something significant is done. Same reason why Tesla is so known. He was madman, not just some boring scientist.
Luke Barnes
There already is bureaucracy in Russia. It never went away. What I'm talking about is a whole social class whose focus will be governance. I'm talking about the law being proposed that no family member of a government official may own a business. If such a law came into effect, the segregation effect on society seems like it would be rather significant. Sure. Credit goes to every country pretty much that still trades with Russia for that matter.
Brody Diaz
>female scientist is famous for being a woman and for dying
lol
And I'm pretty sure she just piggybacked her husband in research
Bentley Parker
>but she's famous! I'm not sure where the virtue in this is anymore.
Not saying she deserves no credit.
Daniel Rogers
Mendeleev's contribution significantly outweighs hers because modern chemistry simply can't exist without periodic table of elements.
