Russia's History vs. the West . . . Comparable?

[Elisabeth]

Very well put, as always, Silja.

One thing we have alluded to but never really discussed in any detail is the position of the merchant class in old Russia and the impact this had on the development of a strong middle class in that country. Up until the end of the nineteenth century the merchant class was a virtual caste, miniscule and over-regulated by the state, from which there was very little social mobility to the upper classes (the nobility and gentry). Traditionally the merchants did not play a role either in administration or civil service. Indeed, they were generally despised, depicted even in Russian literature (which was essentially gentry literature) as "poshlyi," that is, preoccupied with "vulgar" and "commonplace" concerns such as that of making money. (From the seventeenth century, many merchants also happened to be Old Believers, who were traditionally persecuted by the state.) Only a handful of very rich merchants like the Stroganovs and Morozovs ever achieved real social prominence. We can contrast this Russian tradition of frowning upon trade to the Chinese, with their enormous mercantile class dating from ancient times, or even with 16th-century England, where Cardinal Wolsey was the son of a butcher and Thomas Cromwell the son of a clothworker.

[RichC]

Certainly. And certainly from a Western point of view. But from what I remember from my seminars on Russian culture, such a participation of a tiny aristocratic or bureaucratic elite was against this traditional centuries-old (here we are again) Russian idea of rule. It was on the contrary believed that it was precisely the tsar's duty (!) to protect the people from all kinds of oligarchical interference in government matters. The tsar was considered, and even expected to remain totally independent, so that he could give fair judgement in all things. Naturally this is an ideal which can never work in reality. But Nicholas II believed in this ideal, and so did large sections of the Russian population, even as late as the time when Nicholas II ascended the throne. It was this tradition of tsardom which made Nicholas so reluctant to not only give "his rights away", but also to neglect his duty as an independent ruler.


This is precisely the paradox, and in a way, this situation shows that this idealistic view of Russian tsarist rule was just that, an ideal that could certainly not work any more in 20th century Russia. The tragedy perhaps was/ and still is that the Western form of Government couldn't work then either simply because the people were neither able nor ready to create a democratic system. The Russian Revolution (October Rev.) just exchanged a tsar for a red tsar.

In Europe it was usually the people themselves, or in the beginning, the aristocratic elite, which gradually but continually took the power from their princes/rulers, often by force. It was rarely the princes themselves who granted them any rights of their own accord.
So, if in Russia the people didn't have the same rights as in the West, it was because the people wouldn't claim them - and again: wouldn't claim them as a result of a different cultural heritage.

Interestingly, most the points you are making here can be found (with different verbiage) in Alexandra's letters to Nicholas.

[Elisabeth]

Interestingly, most the points you are making here can be found (with different verbiage) in Alexandra's letters to Nicholas.

Well, I hate to say it - but I'll say it anyway for the sake of being provocative and stimulating discussion: maybe Alexandra was basically right in her depiction of the Russian people as too immature and inherently anarchic to rule themselves? Certainly,  she was wrong to think that the old autocratic ideology could solve the problem or that it was either practical or workable in the twentieth century. But what if Nicholas II had had the originality and audacity to construct a new authoritarian (not autocratic, not democratic) ideology in its place? What then?

One of the developments that strikes me about the March Revolution is the fact that "everybody" (according to eyewitnesses) was drunk on one ideology or another - usually socialist in origin. The bulk of the Russian intelligentsia had been preaching extreme solutions to social problems for several generations and the giddiness induced by "scientifically" progressive theories seems to have hit the working class and peasantry especially hard in the aftermath of the March Revolution. But what if - leaving the issue of World War I aside for a moment - the tsar had been preaching, instead of the old autocratic model,  a new authoritarian ideology, one that "scientifically" proved that progress was possible only under intensive capitalism and an authoritarian government headed by an "independent" and "fair-minded" tsar? Might not a new ideology of this type have worked to curb some of the socialist delirium of 1917?  

[Tsarfan]

And certainly from a Western point of view. But from what I remember from my seminars on Russian culture, such a participation of a tiny aristocratic or bureaucratic elite was against this traditional centuries-old (here we are again) Russian idea of rule.

Yep, we're right back to the question of whether Russia was developing along European lines or was something unto herself.

However, I have never argued that it would have been easy for Nicholas to set Russia on a course toward more representative government.  I have argued only that making the attempt was Russia's sole hope of developing a form of government that would have served Russia well in the 20th century.

Setting aside the argument about whether Russia was developing along European lines, I think we agree that Peter I decided to put Russia on the European stage militarily, diplomatically, and commercially.  Once there, she had to compete with the other actors for the big parts in the play.

The western world was industrializing rapidly in 1900.  Education was spreading, standards of living were rising, social impediments were breaking down and unblocking the upward flow of talent from below.  The ability of other countries to project their influence (militarily, but especially commercially) further beyond their borders was advancing rapidly.  As Japan and Germany proved after WWII, a robust economy fuelled by an educated population with attainable hopes of better material lives is a very creditable substitute for a large standing army.

For Russia to maintain her desired role in this changing world and to hold at bay the social forces unleased by these changes was beyond the reach of one-man rule.

Imagine there had been no revolution in Russia.  What would an autocratic Russia ruled by the Romanovs look like in 2005?

[Tsarfan]

But what if - leaving the issue of World War I aside for a moment - the tsar had been preaching, instead of the old autocratic model,  a new authoritarian ideology, one that "scientifically" proved that progress was possible only under intensive capitalism and an authoritarian government headed by an "independent" and "fair-minded" tsar?

Egad . . . I think you've just described Karl Marx's view of the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . as adapted by Lenin and Stalin to give themselves suitable roles!

[Tsarfan]

The modern American idea(l) is to the belief that democratic institutions "fix" everything, but IMO the experiment with the Russian dumas showed that the importation of even adulterated democracy on to foreign soil is fraught with unanticipated difficulties.    

Ouch.  I had hoped that, with many of my earlier posts, I had shown myself not to be so jingoistic.

In fact, I do not view representative government as uniquely, or even particularly, American.  It was used in various degrees and in various forms by the ancient Greeks and Romans, to name but the best-known examples of its antique heritage.

I think monarchy played a beneficial role in much of human history.  For instance, in the West it was probably the best form of government for creating nation states and freeing them from the dominance of the Church in secular affairs.  But I think representative government is the best approach to managing the vastly complex economies and technologies of the modern era.

If anything, I think many of the trends in today's America are testing the limits of democratic institutions rather than proving their perfection.

And I do not believe the Russians who were pushing for a Duma viewed it as an import of the American system.  I think they viewed having a voice in ruling themselves as something inherent in the notion of good and just government.  (It's a collossal shame they were so intransigent and fragmented in their attempt . . . but American views, then or now, had little to do with it.)

[Tsarfan]

Sorry for flooding the thread with three posts in a row . . . but I haven't figured out how to plant quotes from multiple posts into a single post.

[Elisabeth]

Egad . . . I think you've just described Karl Marx's view of the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . as adapted by Lenin and Stalin to give themselves suitable roles!

Actually, I thought I was describing a "dictatorship" of the capitalist oligarchs, on the lines of, say, a Pinochet or a Putin! Ironically, a lot of Russian intellectuals in the early 1990s thought a Pinochet-like regime was the best that Russia could hope for in replacing communism with capitalism.

[Elisabeth]

And I do not believe the Russians who were pushing for a Duma viewed it as an import of the American system.  I think they viewed having a voice in ruling themselves as something inherent in the notion of good and just government.  (It's a collossal shame they were so intransigent and fragmented in their attempt . . . but American views, then or now, had little to do with it.)

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the Russians were importing an American style of government! (I was merely referring to the idealistic view of many Americans that democracy is an immediately workable system of government for every society.) In fact, I believe the Russians took as their model the English parliament, which worked within the framework of a constitutional monarchy. We should also remember that Russia did have some precedent for representative government in its own history - the "gathering of the land," or zemskii sobor.  

[Tsarfan]

Actually, I thought I was describing a "dictatorship" of the capitalist oligarchs, on the lines of, say, a Pinochet or a Putin!

I know.  My remark was meant jokingly.  (However, Stalin's regime has been referred to as "state capitalism", so Russia has already run the experiment in at least some form . . . and to a pretty sorry result.)

[Tsarfan]

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the Russians were importing an American style of government! (I was merely referring to the idealistic view of many Americans that democracy is an immediately workable system of government for every society.)

I get so worked up over this, because you're right.

I strongly feel that representative government (the term I have consistently used instead of democracy, which has a certain U.S.-centric connotation these days) is the best means of government in modern societies that are increasingly turning into polyglots of multiple ethnicities, religions, and heritages.

And I feel that monarchy was once the best form of government for assembling fractious tribes into nation states that could attain the scale needed for growing complex economies and political institutions.  However, one of the traits of monarchy (and other authoritarian systems) that caused it to outlive its efficacy is that it tended to elevate the agenda of the group or groups associated with the leader -- Russification under the tsars, racial purification under Hitler, the expulsion of the Huegenots under the Bourbons, the subjugation of civil authority to the military caste under the Hohenzollerns, the suppression of the Balkan nationalities under the Hapsburgs, etc.

[Tsarfan]

In fact, I believe the Russians took as their model the English parliament, which worked within the framework of a constitutional monarchy.

I agree.  However, I thought you argued elsewhere that the Duma was unworkable because the intelligentsia were incapable of compromise and determined to bring down the monarchy . . . but maybe I misunderstood (and I don't mean that sarcastically).

[Elisabeth]

Any historian who refers to Stalin's regime as a form of "state capitalism" sounds to me like a revisionist desperately trying to get socialism off the hook for having produced a murderous totalitarian system.

I get so worked up over this, because you're right.

I strongly feel that representative government (the term I have consistently used instead of democracy, which has a certain U.S.-centric connotation these days) is the best means of government in modern societies that are increasingly turning into polyglots of multiple ethnicities, religions, and heritages.

I agree, completely.

 However, one of the traits of monarchy (and other authoritarian systems) that caused it to outlive its efficacy is that it tended to elevate the agenda of the group or groups associated with the leader -- Russification under the tsars, racial purification under Hitler, the expulsion of the Huegenots under the Bourbons, the subjugation of civil authority to the military caste under the Hohenzollerns, the suppression of the Balkan nationalities under the Hapsburgs, etc.

I would agree with what you say here, too, except that you threw Hitler into the mix, and Nazi Germany was a totalitarian, not an authoritarian regime. Authoritarian regimes are at least more representative than totalitarian ones! And mass terror isn't the foundation of authoritarian regimes, another important distinction.

[Tsarfan]

Any historian who refers to Stalin's regime as a form of "state capitalism" sounds to me like a revisionist desperately trying to get socialism off the hook for having produced a murderous totalitarian system.

It's been a while since I've read much on the communist era in Russia, and I no longer remember the source for this characterization.

However, I think it's literally accurate.  Under Stalin and his successors, the state did control all means of production, and that's a passable definition of "state capitalism".

As I recall, the source characterized this as both a forseeable and an evil outcome of Russia's being put on a socialist path.  Forseeable because socialism was an economic theory that was inherently unworkable in practice, and evil because of the suffering and destruction of hope engendered by Stalin's collectivization and industrialization policies.

[Elisabeth]

However, I thought you argued elsewhere that the Duma was unworkable because the intelligentsia were incapable of compromise and determined to bring down the monarchy . . . but maybe I misunderstood (and I don't mean that sarcastically).

I'm not sure you misunderstood me, I might have been overcompensating a little for what I sometimes feel to be your somewhat idealized view of the Russian intelligentsia. I think utopian ideas had a far stronger sway over Russian intellectuals than over their European and American peers, and that this was a source of potential danger. There was a sort of lack of pragmatism and balance at the heart of much of Russian political thinking in this era. It was widespread, even or especially among the middle class, and might have been due to the influence not only of European socialism but also of Russian literature itself. There are strong utopian strands in both Dostoevsky and especially Tolstoy - whose impact on Russian culture wasn't entirely positive in this sense.

Of course there were politicians who were themselves pragmatic and willing to compromise for the good of the country. I'm not denigrating the accomplishments of certain statesmen like Stolypin and Witte. I'm talking more about the political atmosphere at large, in which a tendency to go to extremes (both on the left and the right) is readily apparent.

To give just one example, in the last days of the monarchy, Kerensky gave a speech in which he actually stated, "To prevent a catastrophe, the Tsar himself must be removed, by terrorist methods if there is no other way." Imagine a Western politician advocating terrorism in a parliamentary session. It's unimaginable, no matter how desperate the political situation.