Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While much can actually be said in favor of the Russian monarchy throughout history , I'll focus on dropping a few brief lines concerning the Russian Empire as it existed between 1905/1906-1917 as a manifestation of the Russian state that was fairly commendable/could have developed into something even better had the revolutions of 1917 not come to pass .
As documented by historians like Manya Gordon in her book " Workers Before and After Lenin " , Russia was actually a pioneer in labor rights legislation at the time , what with ( as stated in Kuehnelt-Leddihn's " Leftism Revisited " ) the Okhrana going as far as to actually assist workers in setting up labor unions .
The State Duma was far more diverse in its party based/ideological makeup than the US Congress of the same time period and the spirit of public debate/criticism was also far more vibrant than in the USA of the same time period as ( again ) documented in Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book .
******************
In short I believe the view that the Russian state was always an utterly oppressive " Mongol " style despotate is a rather incorrect one , especially if one considers the fact that no manifestation of the Russian state prior to the Soviet Union ever claimed as many innocent victims as the Soviet Union did .
The post is rather well-written and thorough. Taking at face value what you posted, however, the Duma may have been well-constituted but was rarely obeyed. Even pre-1917 there was considerable bloodletting. Jewish emigration, from what I understand, was in the seven figures between 1880 and the state of WW I. While you concede that it wasn't a paradise you don't say what it was. The structure of the government may well have been just fine but the execution was hopelessly corrupt at best, tyrannical at worst. Any "assistance" in setting up labor unions may well have had little effect.
The post is rather well-written and thorough. Taking at face value what you posted, however, the Duma may have been well-constituted but was rarely obeyed. Even pre-1917 there was considerable bloodletting. Jewish emigration, from what I understand, was in the seven figures between 1880 and the state of WW I. While you concede that it wasn't a paradise you don't say what it was. The structure of the government may well have been just fine but the execution was hopelessly corrupt at best, tyrannical at worst. Any "assistance" in setting up labor unions may well have had little effect.
Yes indeed the treatment of Jewish people in the Russian Empire even during that time period I've mentioned was still much worse than that of probably any other European rooted monarchy at the time , in fact ( depending on which sources you accept of course ) the situation of Jewish people in relation to discrimination was supposed to have improved during the Soviet era up until Stalin's rootless cosmopolitan campaign took off .
I brought up the issue of Stolypin's reforms for instance to make the stance that , while the Russian Empire indeed lagged behind other European rooted powers of the same time period in many aspects , the lot of an agricultural worker in Russia after said reforms were enacted was probably better than that of his counterpart in Austria-Hungary ( especially the Hungarian part ) or in terms of landownership probably even that of his British counterpart since large estates were also allegedly far more common in Britain at the time according to the 14th edition of the Brockhaus Lexikon cited in Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book .
It's always a hard task to gauge which country is incontrovertibly better than off than the other IMHO , unless one uses very obvious examples like that of present day Afghanistan versus the present day USA , since it involved so many variables which typically fluctuate .
Historical examples can be especially hard in this aspect since , to use a good example , Bismarck era Germany was far ahead of the USA of the same time period in terms of the protection ( https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...are-180964064/ ) it afforded workers even though during that era far more Germans must have immigrated to the USA than vice versa .
Immigration patterns in particular often have a lot more to do with general " grass is greener on the other side " type syndrome than any really great differences in standard of living or what have you , but I must digress before I overreach my scope .
In short democracy doesn't really seem to suit Russia at this point in time , which is why I believe that a return to the 1905-1917 spirited monarchy in the Kadet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...mocratic_Party ) sort of mold were Putin to fall from power , would be a far better starting point than a repeat of the Yeltsin era " let's try to copy the West wholesale " 1990's .
As an aside I highly recommend that anyone interested check out the book entitled " The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad " by Fareed Zakaria , since it delves pretty deep into the subject of why having formerly non democratic countries swiftly adopt democracy is oftentimes not a good idea , with IIRC Russia being analyzed in depth as well .
Yes indeed the treatment of Jewish people in the Russian Empire even during that time period I've mentioned was still much worse than that of probably any other European rooted monarchy at the time , in fact ( depending on which sources you accept of course ) the situation of Jewish people in relation to discrimination was supposed to have improved during the Soviet era up until Stalin's rootless cosmopolitan campaign took off .
The Jews certainly did not fare well. The Jews, disproportionately to others living in Russia (note I didn't use the term "Russians") "got out of Dodge." Getting out was far trickier from the inception of Communism until the Gorbachev/Yeltsin era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Blakeley
I brought up the issue of Stolypin's reforms for instance to make the stance that , while the Russian Empire indeed lagged behind other European rooted powers of the same time period in many aspects , the lot of an agricultural worker in Russia after said reforms were enacted was probably better than that of his counterpart in Austria-Hungary ( especially the Hungarian part ) or in terms of landownership probably even that of his British counterpart since large estates were also allegedly far more common in Britain at the time according to the 14th edition of the Brockhaus Lexikon cited in Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book .
It's always a hard task to gauge which country is incontrovertibly better than off than the other IMHO , unless one uses very obvious examples like that of present day Afghanistan versus the present day USA, since it involved so many variables which typically fluctuate .
I don't know how much better. The Duma and Stolypin may have enacted reforms. My instinct is that they did not penetrate very far. Same with all of the Duma's and Stolypin's actions, which in many ways mirrored the earlier Westernization attempts of Peter and Alexander II, and the early years of Catherine. Indeed the New York Times wrote "Always longing to do good, always baffled either by his own irresolution or by the perversity of those with whom he had to deal, be has left behind him the record of a reign which, like that of hi;; uncle and namesake, Alexander I., is a splendid fragment, whereon may be fitly inscribed the epitaph that poor Joseph II. of Austria wrote fol' himself: "Here lies one who attempted everything and accomplished nothing." (link to source NY Times, March 13, 1881). Even Gorbachev's "Glasnost" and "Perestroika" came to remarkably little. This is not a surprise given the history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Blakeley
Historical examples can be especially hard in this aspect since , to use a good example , Bismarck era Germany was far ahead of the USA of the same time period in terms of the protection ( https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...are-180964064/ ) it afforded workers even though during that era far more Germans must have immigrated to the USA than vice versa .
Immigration patterns in particular often have a lot more to do with general " grass is greener on the other side " type syndrome than any really great differences in standard of living or what have you , but I must digress before I overreach my scope .
Again, the legal setting may well have not matched the facts on the ground. The great waves of immigration from (modern) Germany and Austria were a bit earlier, after the abortion of the 1848 rebellions. But again, the legislative reforms may have been window dressing. Indeed, the "emancipation" of the Jews during those years, the mid-1800's allowed Jews to hold office and enter professions. This triggered a backlash of the middle class, demostrated by the development of the movement first labeled "Anti-Semitism" around 1879. Source, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933 by Jacob Katz, which I am in the midst of reading. Full "emancipation" of the Jews was enacted, during that era, in France, Germany and Austria-Hungary and really did not sit well with many people. France's reaction was L'Affaire Dreyfusse. Hungary's reaction was the Iron Cross. Austria's and Germany's was initiially "Anti-Semitism" and then Nazism. Countries don't change just because their leadership class wants them to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Blakeley
In short democracy doesn't really seem to suit Russia at this point in time , which is why I believe that a return to the 1905-1917 spirited monarchy in the Kadet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...mocratic_Party ) sort of mold were Putin to fall from power , would be a far better starting point than a repeat of the Yeltsin era " let's try to copy the West wholesale " 1990's .
As an aside I highly recommend that anyone interested check out the book entitled " The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad " by Fareed Zakaria , since it delves pretty deep into the subject of why having formerly non democratic countries swiftly adopt democracy is oftentimes not a good idea , with IIRC Russia being analyzed in depth as well .
I basically agree with you though I'm not sure how great was the "spirited monarchy." If you recall, that didn't end well, with the assassination of Stolypin and then the Revolution(s) of 1917.
The Jews certainly did not fare well. The Jews, disproportionately to others living in Russia (note I didn't use the term "Russians") "got out of Dodge." Getting out was far trickier from the inception of Communism until the Gorbachev/Yeltsin era.
I don't know how much better. The Duma and Stolypin may have enacted reforms. My instinct is that they did not penetrate very far. Same with all of the Duma's and Stolypin's actions, which in many ways mirrored the earlier Westernization attempts of Peter and Alexander II, and the early years of Catherine. Indeed the New York Times wrote "Always longing to do good, always baffled either by his own irresolution or by the perversity of those with whom he had to deal, be has left behind him the record of a reign which, like that of hi;; uncle and namesake, Alexander I., is a splendid fragment, whereon may be fitly inscribed the epitaph that poor Joseph II. of Austria wrote fol' himself: "Here lies one who attempted everything and accomplished nothing." (link to source NY Times, March 13, 1881). Even Gorbachev's "Glasnost" and "Perestroika" came to remarkably little. This is not a surprise given the history.
Again, the legal setting may well have not matched the facts on the ground. The great waves of immigration from (modern) Germany and Austria were a bit earlier, after the abortion of the 1848 rebellions. But again, the legislative reforms may have been window dressing. Indeed, the "emancipation" of the Jews during those years, the mid-1800's allowed Jews to hold office and enter professions. This triggered a backlash of the middle class, demostrated by the development of the movement first labeled "Anti-Semitism" around 1879. Source, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933 by Jacob Katz, which I am in the midst of reading. Full "emancipation" of the Jews was enacted, during that era, in France, Germany and Austria-Hungary and really did not sit well with many people. France's reaction was L'Affaire Dreyfusse. Hungary's reaction was the Iron Cross. Austria's and Germany's was initiially "Anti-Semitism" and then Nazism. Countries don't change just because their leadership class wants them to change.
I basically agree with you though I'm not sure how great was the "spirited monarchy." If you recall, that didn't end well, with the assassination of Stolypin and then the Revolution(s) of 1917.
By spirited I mean that the restoration of a monarchy in the vein of the one which existed during 1905-1917 , especially in the spirit of the Kadet party which existed at the time , would probably provide a much more stable foundation not only for Russia but for future Russia and the " West " relations .
In spite of the events of WW1 and probably some other time periods I'm forgetting to mention , the Russian state was much easier to deal with prior to the Soviet era , in fact wars in general were much less destructive in that broad part of the world before the rise of democracy/related phenomena though that's neither here nor there .
Anyways I really have nothing else to add , so thanks for this exchange and I'm sure we may very well have more some time in the future .
You happen to be too right on this. We actually have plenty, but too many spend too much time nitpicking the imperfections. I'll take them in bunches, a few at a time.
Notre Dame - We have nothing of the antiquity or history of that cathedral. One of the few drawbacks of not having the state and religion intertwined.
Molier, Sartre, Goethe, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky - I differ here. We have James Fenimore, James Hemingway, Edgar Allan Poe, Washington Irving, Jack London, Samuel Clemens a/k/a Mark Twain, William Faulkner, and numerous other great authors. The tradition of course does not go as far back but we've done some serious catching up.
Carl Gauss - We have Thomas Edison, Jonas Salk Alexander Graham Bell (shared with Canada) and scientists that Europe persecuted away such as Albert Einstein.
Bach-Beethoven-Brahms - We have Aaron Copeland, and Igor Stravinsky, persecuted away from Europe, and others. Again, like the authors, the tradition of course does not go as far back but we've done some serious catching up. For a young country we have a lot
Maybe not the Hoover Dam, but the Rockies can tie with anything the Alps have to throw at them. The Urals? Really.
As for the Mississippi, sure it does. The show Showboat and Ol' Man River, and the Hudson River school of painting?
I see no reason not to love the Hudson River school of painting and have no particular admiration for John Quincy Adams. That being said, Europe has its strengths, no doubt. However you don't see many Americans looking to migrate their. The other direction? Plenty.
The key is where he did his inventing. I put Einstein and Stravinsky because they were chased to the U.S. In Scotland, no one would have been a threat to him. However, the lack of opportunity made Canada and the U.S. a draw, so that actually strengthens my point. Good catch though.
Yes, but he did most of his inventing in the US. The Bell telephone company (Ma Bell) later became AT&T.
He was accused at the time of stealing from someone else's work, and faced many lawsuits. The US government attempted to rescind his patent, but he won in court.
‘I Don’t Want to Be Called Russian Anymore’: Anxious Soviet Diaspora Rethinks Identity; (link), excerpts below:
I have never gotten this thing about hating emigres and their descendants for the horrors committed by their ancestors' rulers. It seems to me that most people emigrating from Eastern Europe or, for that matter China did so to escape the madhouses that those areas have historically been.
Speaking for myself, I am Jewish; half Slovak/Hungarian and half Russian, from modern Poland and Ukraine. I believe, unashamedly and unapologetically, in my Jewish and American heritage. I have no pride or longing for my European roots.
How do others feel?
Did/do we as Americans feel ashamed, horrible and would like not to be called “Americans” for the bombing of Belgrade and the war in Yugoslavia, the millions of lives destroyed in Iran? Iraq? Syria? Chile? Japan? etc. The list is very long
BTW, I think what ever is going on in the Ukraine is largely the US doing too.
Americans of different ethnicities with the origins from Russia (not all are Russians, btw, but Jewish, Ukrainians, etc- Russia has more than 100 nationalities) - shouldn’t feel any guilt as far as I am concerned.
The same way a lot of Americans are helpless to effectively influence the politics of the USA: nothing we can do.
I am considering even not voting anymore - for the same reason George Carlin did.
Last edited by L00k4ward; 05-16-2022 at 12:53 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
