This was one of the pet peeves of the Lykov family, descendants of persecuted beard wearers, to the point that they moved into the wilderness of Siberia for 40 years, missing any notion of WW2 in the process: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-rus...
If you search youtube, theres an excellent video of a hiker going out to see the last remaining Lykov (Agafia i think). Its a beautiful area and a fascinating story.
The article states that this was part of an effort to reorient the country's culture. That might seem strange to Americans / Western Europeans today, but this was not an isolated case and while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing (with the right approach and an amount of luck).
A more modern example is Turkey, where Atatürk revised script, clothing, education, and many other aspects of the country's culture. While no one will every know "what would have been", it's arguable that these reforms made Turkey more "European" and less "Middle Eastern" - which I think was the intent.
So, today Turkey is more like an Italy than a Syria (though that is changing), and perhaps those reforms are part of the reason why.
As a Turkish person, we are reminded of this pretty much every day. However, it’s also important to avoid the cult of personality: Ataturk’s reforms did not come out of nothing. Turkey at that point had been a cosmopolitan society of many communities for almost a thousand years, many of which were non-Muslim and some of which were western. That kind of permanent interface was arguably one of the things that gave Turkey the ability to lunge for a western, secular democracy, and more importantly, manage to keep it (nascent as it is) for a hundred years, up until now.
Erdogan has been in power for twenty years by now — much as he would have loved to dismantle it, this is as far as it has gotten. Imperfect as it is, if it manages to hand power off of Erdogan in 2023 peacefully, Turkish democracy will have passed the acid test. If that doesn’t work, nobody knows.
There are elections coming in 2023 (as scheduled) and possibly earlier if the opposition manages to force it due to current low confidence in the government. All prior ‘this is critical’ moments were either local elections (cannot affect the national gov’t) or sort of wishful thinking on the opposition’s part. This one is different, because Erdogan is not only not polling first in a very long time, he is polling fourth and the last.
It also is significant because the collapse of TRY to half its prior value was both swift and for the first time ever, visibly caused by bad leadership.
For fun I walked around the lise that was the polling center during an election 4-5 years ago. There were poll workers caught stealing votes. There was a vehicle without a license plate waiting outside the front door of the school to steal the ballot box if necessary.
There is also a massive influx of Syrian refugees who may be allowed to vote... and these refugees are said to almost entirely vote according to the Islamic perspective.
I don't see Erdoğan losing if the election were to be held today. But a lot can change in a couple of years, and as you say the economic situation may aid the opposition.
The attempted coup was certainly a critical moment as well. It was passed when it became evident many of the protesters fighting back against the coup were political opponents of Erdogan. Hopefully that's settled one particular question - no more coups, even if it's against your political opponents.
The coming election is I think another legitimately critical tests. It's not great that Turkey faces multiple critical tests, in a relatively short period of time in the grand scheme of things, but the important thing is it passes them.
The coup failed on two counts. First it didn’t get enough support within the military to be viable. Second even Erdogan’s political opponents fought against it.
Given history there’s always been a fear of the possibility of a coup at some point. Hopefully that episode has resoundingly shown coups in Turkey are not an option anymore. So yes it failed spectacularly and I think that’s the important point.
More or less, since Turkish people had their share of unsuccessful and successful coup attempts in the past, it is not unimaginable. I would understand why it would look staged to outside observers. However, if a complex and dynamic process with many moving parts fail, it fails spectacularly.
Interesting to call "adolescent" such an old civilization. I wonder how frequently a given plot of land and people goes through a full human-like life. How often are regions reinventing themselves, over history?
I would consider the Turkish Republic a newborn at 1923, not a continuation of the Ottoman Empire from 1299, mostly because it was a switch in cultural codes and a reset in wealth. OE bequeathed very little wealth to TR, so this is the first time Turkey is coming to any significant wealth and influence in the world. The last time the government of Asia Minor had any real wealth and influence was early 19th century, and since that timespan is longer than a human life, the country ‘forgot’ to conduct itself gracefully.
Now, Turkey is trying to learn on the fly how not to be a bull in a china shop.
Like every year is the "Year of the Linux Desktop", it's the same for Turkey "This is the critical moment for Turkish democracy" ~ a fellow Turk in his late 30s.
Do you think that Imamoglu (Mayor of Istanbul) will run for presidency and win?
Is there a reason to worry about a possible coup or large scale voting fraud if Erdogan is likely to lose?
The current constitution of Turkey gives a lot of power to the President. Is the opposition ready to draft a new constitution with more checks and balances?
Imamoglu appears to be making much more headway into the conservative circles than any other secular leader, so it’s not obvious to me that he would lose if he tried. However, he is also a new name in Turkish politics, and only Istanbulites regularly hear of his name. While Istanbul is the heart of Turkey it’s not so dominant in a way that winning Istanbul practically guarantees the race — it doesn’t.
In short, I’m hopeful about him, and he’s already doing a good job in the second most powerful post in TR in terms of visibility. I’m not entirely sure his time for presidency has come yet, but if he thinks it has, he would have a fair shot at it.
> Is there a reason to worry about a possible coup or large scale voting fraud if Erdogan is likely to lose?
Turkish elections are one of the most closely watched in the world by international observers and they have a world-leading participation rate at 80+%, which is unheard of in most western democracies. It likely very hard to pull off large scale election fraud.
> The current constitution of Turkey gives a lot of power to the President. Is the opposition ready to draft a new constitution with more checks and balances?
Yes, this is the priority #1 for any incoming president that would not be Erdogan. He wanted the system to be essentially an elected emperorship by way of the Holy Roman Empire and he got unexpectedly close. That needs to be patched up.
There seems to be two popular candidates at the moment, Yavas(Mayor of Ankara) and Imamoglu. Imamoglu looks to be more ambitious, thus it is likely he will run for presidency. All the current polls suggest either of them could win against Erdogan if the opposition can form an united front. It is easier than it would be in a parliamentary system, since if no candidate secures over fifty percent of the votes in the first round, the top two candidates go for the second round of elections.
And yes, the opposition parties declared the next government would be a transitional one and curb the powers of the president
Erdogan has formed some paramilitary organizations in the recent years and these are worrying. However, the opposition literally watches over every single vote with multiple volunteers, lawyers and every single vote table gets recorded online in real time. It would be certainly hard to pull of a blatant fraud. Thats how opposition managed to win major cities few years back, against all corrupt judiciary branch.
I don’t like Erdogan as much as the next guy, but the claims of a ‘corrupt’ judiciary and ‘paramilitary’ organisations are big accusations that need extraordinary evidence.
Absolutely. Actually the reason I posted that comment in the first place was to solicit reactions from Turks (I am not Turk, but have spent years in Turkey.) The cult of personality factor is high, and somewhat concerning. But (maybe) understandable given what it's counterbalancing, and the background of the people it's intended to influence.
A very interesting example of a similar but seriously different process was the Meiji revolution in Japan. It restored the emperor and pushed westernization into high gear — Western science, technology, and culture was studied very intensively.
Along with that, the traditional Japanese culture was jealously preserved in other areas, so as to combine the best and most important Japanese traits and traditions with the most powerful and useful European knowledge.
This is very unlike the effort of Peter the Great, who tried hard to make Russia more genuinely Western and replace as much traditional structure everywhere as he could. The success was mixed, of course.
> while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing
That's called euro-centrism isn't it. And every westerner believes wholeheartedly that it is the best most constructive thing to do. So it is neither right nor wrong politically.
But it does dull the world when every place you go to is Europe in microcosm. That is a true vision of dystopian hell itself.
Countries are allowed to change. A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. The leader of Turkey wanted to take his country in a particular direction. That is a valid local decision by a local leader. What is euro-centric is to dictate to those local leaders, to tell countries that they shouldn't change their culture as they see fit. Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.
And it's almost always the case. Peter the Great was concerned with Russia's military backwardness, lack of a navy in particular, while being in conflict with the Swedish Empire. The Japanese were forced to "modernize" by the American military ships. Turkey modernized after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, i.e. after the tremendous losses to the European powers. Smaller modern states today are also pressured to participate in globalization in various ways. Also colonialism.
> A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders.
You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee".
You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leader of Turkey" did. It was under duress - real threat of national disintegration and even genocide. It wasn't that Ataturk wanted to take Turkey in a particular direction, it was that external forces gave him no choice. It was either submit his european masters or cease to exist.
Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to.
> Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.
Sure, but they aren't mimics either that exist to mindlessly copy or be forced to copy the world's biggest bullies.
In an ideal world, countries can copy from others what they choose, but that's sadly not how the world works. The most brutal force their "values" on the weaker.
> And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee".
...
> Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to.
This is not an accurate reading of history.
Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. Not only had the Ottoman Empire been dismantled, the territory of modern Turkey had been partitioned and split amongst the victors, much like Hungary had lost land in addition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire being dismantled (for which Hungarian nationalists still harbour resentment to this day). Large parts of Western Anatolia were ceded to Greece as part of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, and Constantinople was put under Allied military administration at the end of the war.
This was the cause of the Turkish War of Independence, which began shortly after the end of the First World War. Winning this war was what made Atatürk's name, in a rather literal way - it is the very reason why he's considered the father of the nation. So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won. If he had been concerned about submitting to his 'European masters', events like the Greek genocide which carried on after the founding of the Republic of Turkey would never have occurred.
Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"? I posit it's impossible.
> Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War.
No. The ottoman empire essentially was.
> So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won.
Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?
Ataturk did what "the West" wanted. He ended the ottoman caliphate and created the modern turkish republic.
The West offered the turks two choices. Create a turkish republic and thereby ending the ottoman empire. Or enduring the destruction of the Ottoman Empire AND the turkish nation. The turkish elites "chose" the former rather than facing complete annihilation. And turkey has been a vassal of the West ever since. Not that they had any choice in the matter, no more than japan or germany had a choice in the matter.
There is an "accurate reading of history" and deciphering what is really happening. Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years. Ataturk gave them what they wanted.
To think that ataturk or the turks decided the matter rather than the US, Britain, France, etc combined is rather naive. Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep? I don't think so. But the power dynamics being what they were, it is what happened.
> Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"?
There are certainly worse ones.
> No. The ottoman empire essentially was.
The point of that turn of phrase was that the Turkey was born already with a significant amount of its territory ceded and under occupation. This territory was not given up back to the Turks willingly.
> Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?
Yes? That was what the Turkish war of independence was about. US involvement in this war was fairly limited at any rate. And as a matter of fact, the British, French, and Greeks fought on the side of the Ottomans in the war - almost as if the Ottomans were the Western 'vassals' here. You think the West really wanted to give up a compliant government which had already proven itself to bend to their demands for another which had proven itself strong enough to retake the land which had been ceded to the West?
> Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years.
Europe had been wanting the empire's land for centuries, something the post-war Ottoman government was all too willing to cede.
> Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep?
This is extremely anachronistic. The Ottoman Empire had not been great or wealthy for the better part of a century, having been known as the Sick Man of Europe for the better part of a century prior to its collapse.
In light of the Ottomans' capitulation to Allied demands, of course the Turks had little desire to continue the monarchy. Why would they? It had not only lost the war, considerable amounts of territory, and the city of Constantinople, but the imperial government itself stood in the way of trying to retake any lost territory. Popular support was therefore on Atatürk's side, not the monarchy's; if it hadn't been, his revolution would have been impossible.
> Yes? That was what the Turkish war of independence was about.
The turkish war of independence was merely a face saving way of the west letting ataturk end the ottoman empire. It's fairly obvious if you look at it in the context of what the west wanted.
> And as a matter of fact, the British, French, and Greeks fought on the side of the Ottomans in the war - almost as if the Ottomans were the Western 'vassals' here.
Or we didn't want it to fall in the hands of the russians, etc.
> You think the West really wanted to give up a compliant government which had already proven itself to bend to their demands for another which had proven itself strong enough to retake the land which had been ceded to the West?
Yes because the goal was the end of the ottoman empire, which the ottoman government steadfastly refused to do so.
> The Ottoman Empire had not been great or wealthy for the better part of a century, having been known as the Sick Man of Europe for the better part of a century prior to its collapse.
It was great and wealthy enough to fend off any single european empire. It just wasn't able to fight everyone ( the british, french, US, russians, etc ) and deal with the european funded separatist movements in greece, balkans, arabia, palestine, etc. For a sick man of "europe", the ottomans did well to survive a collective assault by the greatest powers in the world at the time. But wasn't that the problem? This sick man refused to die so the west had to find someone who'd put this sick man out of his misery. But who would be able to do such a thing? A "war hero" perhaps?
> Popular support was therefore on Atatürk's side, not the monarchy's; if it hadn't been, his revolution would have been impossible.
No revolution has ever been won with popular support. All revolutions are revolutions of the elites. Ataturk and his elite backers ( which most likely included the west ) won over the pro-ottoman elites. Simple as that. And history is written to spin it as a "popular" victory. This applies to the american, french, russian, chinese, etc revolutions. None of them had popular support. Most of the people were either ambivalent or opposed to these revolutions.
As I stated, the goal of the west was the end of the ottoman empire. The ottoman government refused while ataturk acquiesced. Ataturk's reforms feel like they were written by the west rather than a turk. At the end of the day, europe wanted the sick man dead and Ataturk killed the sick man. The only question is whether ataturk collaborated with the west to kill the sick man or not. If you aren't blinded by nationalism or "history", it's fairly obvious ataturk was a "hired gun".
> A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders.
it's also quite a bad idea if it is forced upon your nation by an autocrat who tries to 'modernize' or secularize his own population without really considering if that's what they want.
Modernizers like Atatürk had nothing to do with genuine change, they were trying to impose copied values from countries they perceived to be superior onto their own populations. Same thing happened in India, or for a while in China. Today you can see pretty much every single one of these civilizations reasserting their own identity and ways of life, which are thousands of years old, not decades.
Countries should change, but they should change according to their own unique values and history, not because foreign educated or inspired elites try to impose 'Western' ideals on them out of a sense of inferiority. That world is over and it's coming crashing down quick.
Is post-WW2 West Germany a product of spontaneous pro-democratic change, or was Western-style democracy imposed on it by the occupying powers and Adenauer, the first Chancellor? After all, the country was still full of resentful Nazis and hopeful Communists (who built a strictly totalitarian German state just next door) in the early 50s.
Same question, but more pronounced, for post-WW2 Japan.
You can remove the "euro" part from it, and pick any other successful civilization which produced a rich culture. E.g. Chinese culture influenced its neighbors to a very significant extent, and certain traits of it were consciously emulated, say, in Japan and Korea at certain times.
Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. They chose it on their own. If you're going to say that their choice was wrong, that would be rather paternalistic, don't you think?
>Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe.
history was pressuring. In both cases the more advanced, technically/militarily in particular, Europe was an existential threat - in case of Russia to make Russia (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) into a small dukedom far in the forests, and in case of Turkey - for example the post WW1 partitioning plan for Osman Empire included partitioning of what is modern Turkey territory.
the point here is that after Mongol period Russia started to collide in 15xx with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth with the issue culminating in Polish invasion of 1610 resulting in Moscow capture and putting up Polish Prince as Tsar. It came pretty close to Russia just becoming a satellite province/vassal state of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. During the 16xx Swedish Empire is rising and is going south and east and firmly cutting Russia from Baltic Sea and taking a bunch of North West territories. In the second half of 16xx the slowing down Russia was no match for modern Sweden. Without Peter the Great's modernization (suppose his sister Sophia's coup succeeded) of Russia and winning the war with Sweden as a result,
Russia would have most probably lost a lot of territories (including core territories like Novgorod and Moscow regions) in the next few decades to Sweden and Poland and, instead of becoming Russian Empire, would be reduced to some small dukedom(s) on the Eastern edges of Europe, and with probable forced Catholicization it would basically cease to exist as a familiar Russian state.
Why, so I can visit the Lamborghini factory and pizza restaurant?
If you think my statement sounds like a shallow cliche then I would remind you that a group of people connected loosely by the idea of a state have cultural norms and traditions that make their little corner of the world unique...and Id say this surpasses the idea of materialism/unbounded consumption that undertones every conversation about "Europe Vs ...." measuring progress by how many cappucino cafes per square kilometer is a rather dull way to view the world at the very least.
When people talk about this they simply mean that cappuccino cafes are better than landmines, and that Italy beats Syria by that good vs bad metric.
It's not an argument that we should replace all culture with a European facsimile, merely that some movement towards the proven model for success is needed.
The difference is that cultural differences can be expressed in Europe. You can't do that in those contested regions because everyone wants to violently force their own cultural difference upon the rest of the population.
I don't think it started with Atatürk at all. The Ottomans were trying to follow a more European model for quite some time before WW1. Hence their close relation with Germany and folly of entering WW1.
It's not quite so simple. Peter often gets criticized for borrowing the book on the parts he did like (science, engineering), but meticulously avoiding all the parts he didn't fancy - especially the political philosophy. Russia still acquired some; it was simply unavoidable with sending so many people to study abroad. But so long as we're speaking of would-have-beens, if Peter didn't do it, a later monarch might have carried it out in a way that didn't keep Russia lagging the rest of Europe politically by a century.
Peter the Great built St. Petersburg and one of the most spectacular palaces in the world called Peterhof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhof_Palace), a must to visit when you are there.
Peter himself didn't much care for grandeur and so had a very modest building for himself that is part of the tour of the palace, with lots of baths in it. There is a list of "Peter's Rules" hanging on the wall in that "small palace" that were enforced, very short, including:
- You can have one manservant only, no matter your position [the space was really small]
- You bunk where you are assigned to, no trading, and no complaining about it
This decision -- along with many others inaugurated by Peter -- contributed to the perception of a european/slavic bifurcation in the Russian soul. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and many others wrestled with the implications of this centuries later. I daresay it still shapes russian self-perception.
Not just perception - there was a very real conflict in the 19th century between traditional Russian values and western ideas such as nihilism and socialism. Dostoevsky was such an idealist in his youth, then turning his back on those movements after being imprisoned in hard labor camp. In his book Demons, he very much groks the dangers of these western ideas, which led to the disastrous 70 year reign of the Bolsheviks
If you take an objective look at the USSR from 1917 to 1990, while there was a lot of bad things, they also completely industrialized the country, literacy rates went from 28% to 99.7% (triple it in the first 15 years, by trying to teach everyone to read their native language first instead of Russian first). They were the first country to put a man in space. I'm not sure that it was all disastrous.
That's exaggeration of course. Many but not THAT many.
Story from my step-grandfather:
He was a village school director and teacher in Ukraine at times of 1932/33 famine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93...).
With students from senior classes he developed piece of farm land just to feed junior classes - make real breakfast at list for them.
Each day he walked to school with knapsack - prepared for detention, as all agricultural surplus should go to collectors. All that was real, indeed.
...
At WWII, he served as an artillery lieutenant, literally walked by foot from Voronezh/Russia to Berlin/Germany.
They were crying "for the Motherland, for the Stalin" all way along. And that one was also real.
Later he was a father of an academic and two doctors of science in USSR.
You can’t look at those numbers without comparing to other societies. Raising literacy over that time period….is not especially rare?
Nor was industrialization. You’re giving them credit for something basically every european country did in that timeframe. And many other countries besides.
Not strictly saying you’re wrong. I haven’t done the comparative argument so it’s possible they did have a comparative advantage on either front. But you’d need to compare to other countries to have a meaningful claim.
In particular try Italy and Spain, countries with many peasants circa 1900. Virtually identical trajectories.
The USSR, if around today, would have a population of 300 million. They were a superpower. Only large powers made it to space. It was certainly impressive, but also a natural result if you have a large portion of your economy devoted to military spending and missile research. The space program in both USA and USSR allowed for ICBM delivery of nuclear warheads, a crucial strategic goal.
Not that impressive if you consider population and vast, really vast amounts of land that have gigantic natural resources and lack of any real power blocking them from the east.
Basically with that base anyone could do it (I don't dispute that having a gun pointed at your and your family head wasn't mobilizing for scientists, but that's normal for authoritarian states).
it was called "colony" back then and Western Europe was doing it for several centuries. For example the wonderful rubber being a major part of the European technological leap at the end of 19th - beginning of 20th century was produced in Belgian Congo where not doing your daily quota would for example result in your family members mutilated or killed:
"How to get that rubber, as much and as quickly as possible?
In the absence of scruples, the answer was distressingly simple. Send armed men to a village, kidnap the women and children, and if their menfolk did not bring back enough rubber, chop off a hand - or kill a family."
No. We just exterminated countless indigenuous peoples/nations and stole their land. Not to mention stealing resources/capital from china, india, middle east, africa, etc plunging much of the world into unimaginable poverty from which many still haven't recovered. Nothing as terrible as the gulags...
People are naturally born poor. Nobody told the Chinese or Africans to create that many poor people. Most of those children were born with the expectation that they die early. Isn't that cruel?
Poland had been split 3 times by a Prussian+Austrian+Russian alliance long before WW2. Some of those nations were even trying to forcibly transplant their own culture in Poland.
This is a great lesson for all those playing Civilization-like games.
Don't start a country on plains without any mountains or hills blocking access from at least 3 sides.
Poland was unlucky by having mountains in south, where we have rather peaceful nations. Sea from north (Swedes invaded Poland once, but that's mostly it) and nothing (except forests) from west (with Germany) and Russia in the east.
(of course now it is a bit different, but lack of natural obstacles from east/west is still real).
OK, so which West countries had plantations?
Did Germany have them? Yeah, first ones in 1884 and lost all of them in 1914.
And it was most industrialized country.
Unification into the German Empire didn't happen until 1871.
The parts that were industrialized were part of France. Germany itself didn't undergo a massive industrialization until a century after Britain.
The western industrialization didn’t create gulags in the western world, but it was largely paid for by untold cruelty in Asia and Africa, and slavery in the US. Concentration camps existed far before the Nazis, and many millions died through genocide and famine created by the European powers.
Most people with a regard for human life consider mass murder[1] on a scale hitherto unseen[2], which is really saying something given that the world had just seen WW2, to be disastrous.
[1] Thus not including battlefield deaths of soldiers.
I barely overlapped with both of my great-grandfathers but fortunately one of them left his memoirs behind.
in there it says that he ran away from home early and "during revolution was just a street hooligan breaking streetlamps for amusement". He did eventually complete engineering school and wound up designing and building ports and hydroelectric dams during all the heavy industrialization and the war. He said he was happy about that change that allowed him to become educated.
A planned economy is great when you have a few well defined tasks to really worry about. But you can't really become dynamic and resilient like a market economy can. So certain goals, like getting everyone to read or building a spaceship work reasonably well but it simply can't compete with a market economy in the longer run and dies a death of a thousand capitalist cuts eventually.
The Chinese probably have it more right than the Soviets in that they manage a few big things and then let the market more or less self manage to a point so long as the CCP is getting their cut and gives their blessing.
Socialism is a perfect system. I mean: socialism is probably the system that God uses to rule his Angels in Heaven. It has only one tiny flaw: in order to work it requires the society to be perfect as well, and most importantly completely selfless. But for less than perfect societies capitalism works better, because it can turn people's flaws (i.e.: greed, ambition) for the common good.
Yes, I agree. Consider the greatest flaw in capitalism: Greedy people want greedy money for greedy people. The problem with greedy money is that it turns everyone into a greedy person. Similar dynamics exist for housing. People clearly want a gold style asset that they can greedily hold onto. The problem is that this greed gets in the way of the utility of the asset. Money exists as a medium of exchange (i.e. a means to repay debt) and real estate exists to house people.
It's funny how Bitcoin was created as a response to 2008 but all it merely did is replicate the flaws of conventional fiat currencies that lead to 2008 in a much shorter time span. All it shows is that the demand for greedy money is unstoppable.
Bolshevism was a disaster, but the traditional Russian society that preceded it was not much better. The Russia that overthrew its Mongol overlords never managed to develop the social and cultural institutions required to form a stable and prosperous society. Novgorod had them, but it was one of the first victims of Muscovy.
There was perhaps a chance in the 19th century, when Alexander II tried to turn Russia into a constitutional monarchy. The chance died when nihilists killed him and his son reversed the course. The same ideas that gave rise to social democracy in the West turned into Marxism-Leninism in Russia. One was a great success story, another was an equally great catastrophe.
Why, socialism was fine with most Russians, that is, the peasants. Check out the obschina thing [1] which was the traditional structure of non-noble country living; it's full of communal and rather socialist institutions.
The revolutionaries like the young Dostoevsky and a number of other Russian left intellectuals were quite westernized, and had the French revolution as an example, with its franternité, egalité et liberté. (Interestingly, not the American revolution which was hugely more successful but not leftist.)
Coincidentally, I recently stumbled across a really great lecture series with maybe 50 hours of great university lecture style content on Imperial Russia and I've been listening to it as I go to bed. Around episode 7 or 8 I believe he discusses this episode. If anyone wants to learn about something off their normal radar, I really recommend this lecture series.
It starts off kind of slow. Id say the first episode is probably the worst of the series but the guy's got a captive student audience so I don't think he's prioritizing reeling in the audience.
He was an extremely active ruler. Founded the Russian navy, founded St. Petersburg. He was indeed also very interested in all kinds of science and technology and tried to import these to Russia.
On the other hand, it seems that all the monarchs of this time basically treated their land as their inherited, God-given wealth. So in that respect, Peter and practically all others were extremely ego-centric and shallow. Modernization did not extend to democratization.
There were still some substantial differences between Russian take on monarchy, and what was common in Western Europe at the time. While European monarchs claimed divine right to rule, the concept of subjects' rights was already developed by then, and not just in England; rulers required some legitimate justification for the more drastic actions. In Russia, in contrast, literally every person in the country was deemed a slave to the ruler, to be disposed of at will - a legacy it inherited from the Byzantines via the adoption of Eastern Orthodoxy, and later reinforced by Mongol customs during the occupation.
Yes, it's a contrast between Russian and Western monarchy that is commonly emphasized. It's a true difference.
But also no: learning more about this age made me realize that pre-Napoleonic Western Europe was even less liberal than I had expected. It is hard to learn about this age and not feel that policy was set entirely by and for the benefit of a small clique that held the levers of power.
Certainly some Western monarchies had more liberal pretensions than others. England of course is the prototypical example, and probably was the most liberal in practice. But it was a pretty big outlier amongst Western monarchies.
Learning more about Charles XII (Sweden), Augustus II (Saxony and Poland), Louis XIV (France): which one of these considered the suffering of the common people when they embarked on their wars of conquest and personal aggrandizement? Consider also how readily nobles traded realms when a larger or more prosperous fief came along. It's hard not conclude that these rulers treated their states as nothing more than inherited estates, to use and dispose of as they wished.
Comparing France, Spain, Austria to Peter's Russia: how much more liberal were these Western states?
Oh, I'm not saying that it was liberal in the modern sense of the word. And yes, most of those subjects' rights that I'm talking about pertained mostly to the nobles and the educated classes - that was the big difference between Russia and, say, Austria, not so much the difference in the day to day lives of peasants (although wrt the latter, the difference is that things were actually getting worse in Russia at the time, as serfdom - already some of the harshest in Europe - became more and more like full-fledged chattel slavery; but that problem would peak later, not under Peter).
But the important thing that this did was to establish the concept of the rights of the subjects vis a vis their rulers, and the requirement for the latter to maintain the legitimacy of their rule. When liberal thought emerged much later, it built on those concepts, extending them to larger segments of the population. In Russia, this happened as well eventually, but much slower.
All the later history of Russia was written in a narrative like "Pyotr the Great was the first sensible tzar". Even communists bought it. It says maybe more about who was paying historians for their work, than about Pyotr, but in any case it means that repercussions of his work lasted for centuries.
I'd say, that the most sensible tzar was Feodor, who worked before Pyotr, who worked on the same goal but much more sensible, it was a patient work through decades, but history remembers crazy kings, not sensible ones.
> It says he worked at a shipyard which is admirable but no further mention of what impression that left.
He also learned in Europe how to perform tooth extraction, and liked to pull teeth of members of his retinue. It is said, that it was a great entertainment for him to found someone with toothache.
A digression for sure, but I really love the pseudo-historical comedy drama The Great, in which a beard ban is a minor plot point. It plays merry hell with historical accuracy, but is tons of fun.
Peter the Great's life is extremely interesting, and that book, while being a biography, honestly reads like an exciting novel. There are so many "game of thrones"-like moments in his life.
As someone with a beard, I just cant imagine shaving every morning. Seems like a huge pain in the ass and waste of time. You do you if thats your thing though.
Eh, for me it takes less time than brushing my teeth.
Then again under lockdown it's more like once or twice a week than daily. I suppose that counts against my argument though, if it was so easy why don't I still do it daily?
There are a lot of easy things that we don't do everyday... We brush our teeth for health & hygiene. We, for the most part, trim/shave our beards for fashion. After all, under lockdown did you always get dressed up in the same way you did before?
Now, if it cost you money to keep your beard, that would be a different situation and probably motivate you more.
As someone who shaves... Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I view it.
I tried growing a beard for a while, but I found that it was itchy, and anything I did to try to alleviate that was as much work as shaving, or even more.
Recently, I switched electric razors again and it's a lot quicker and easier than the ones I'd been using (for like 5-7 years), and it's back to "meh whatever" category again instead of "Ugh, do I have to do this?"f
Someone said it takes less time than brushing their teeth, and that's not quite true for me... But my electric toothbrush says I should brush for 2 minutes, and my electric razor says I should spend less than 3 minutes shaving so I won't irritate my skin, so it's pretty close to that.
Beards become less itchy the more they grow. Shaving makes the hair sharp, and itchy. But if you let it grow out, trim the beard, and such, a beard becomes no more itchy than hair on your head. But there is a good 2 weeks of itchy.
A while after that it got itchy again, and I ended up having to use special shampoo and "beard butter" and such to stop it from itching. It ended up not worth the time, effort and money.
In the days before the safety razor, not that many men shaved every day. Supposedly it was WW I that created the daily shaving habit in the US. Before that, it was common to be shaved by the barber.
That seems plausible - being able to wear a gas mask with a tight seal was a matter of life and death in WW1. When a habit like that can save your life, I don't imagine you'd be quick to give it up after returning home.
I find shaving pleasurable. Something about the ritual and the smoothness and clean feeling sensation of my face afterwards.
That said, I often grow a beard during ski season. Because I just enjoy the mountain man look to go with my telemark skiing, winter clothes, accompanying border collie covered in snow, and beer belly.
Let's not pretend that there wasn't serious, and at times deadly, anti-semitic overtones to the requirement to shave beards, and the financial penalties that came from seeking exemption.
The Beard Tax was notoriously leveraged against religious jews, forbidden by law to shave their beards. The "civilized" authorities took much advantage of this.
sorry, man, you did misfire here. There is of course no question about antisemitism in Russia, it is just that the Russia of Peter the Great didn't have a number of Jews, especially not converted ("religious jews, forbidden by law to shave their beards"), to speak about. The beard tax was really a symbol of breaking the conservative Russian opposition (like that top nobility - "boayre" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar#/media/File:Bojaren.jpg).
"Before the 18th century Russia maintained an exclusionary policy towards Jews, in accordance with the anti-Jewish precepts of the Russian Orthodox Church. When asked about admitting Jews into the Empire, Peter the Great stated "I prefer to see in our midst nations professing Mohammedanism and paganism rather than Jews. They are rogues and cheats. It is my endeavor to eradicate evil, not to multiply it.""
