Putin himself seems to deplore Stalin; I think partly because it was Stalin that made Ukraine a soviet republic distinct from Russia. It's quite odd; Putin seems to be the most Stalin-like leader Russia has had since - well, Stalin. I have no way of knowing what ordinary Russians think of Stalin; I've not seen a Levada Centre poll on the question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/26...
It wasn’t really Stalin, that’s just how the Soviet union worked pretty much from the beginning (self determination and all that stuff). Stalin gave Ukraine additional territories which might be what you’re actually referring to.
I would argue he is much closer to the tsars in the following aspects:
- incestuous state-church relationship (it took for WWII to happen for Stalin to let a bit of leeway to the Orthodox church) to enforce the state legitimacy;
- dreams about re-building an imperial Russia directly under Moscow rule (Stalin focused on “Socialism in one country” after the failure of the USSR/Poland war and then went down the “buffer-states belt” policy post-WWII);
- deliberately exhibits lavish luxury (Stalin had a life style that was closer to wealthy retired US surgeon – by which I mean a couple villas and nice cars – than imperial Archduke)
- and no realistic, well-anchored long term view for the country – safe for making him and his cronies wealthier (this is not an apology of stalinism and its hundreds of thousands of murdered, but at least Stalin had an idea of where the Soviet Union was, where he wanted it to be, and what was materially required for that).As an example of the fascist/statist bent of this organization, check out the artwork in this cathedral:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQNs5GUyU4&pp=ygUZcnVzc2lhI...
That's true of the post-WWII, post-Stalin USSR. Up until the big changes of 1941, nearly all churches had been closed, publication of religious texts was forbidden and many popes were deported.
https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...
Conservatism is traditionally a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda. That's also why you nowadays can see the GOP being co opted by the Kremlin, while simultaneously Evangelicals are up in arms behind Trump. Some of these people really think Russia stands for traditional values and demand UA to surrender.
Same occured here before WWII, where Hitler was seen as law&order and would finally do something against undesirable elements from society.
The playbook of strong-men and their servants are boringly predictable. Lhbti-free zones (Orban, Hungary), racial rage, women needs to embrace traditional role, forbidding books, you name it. None of it contributes to society in any meaningful way, but you can get 50% of the USA behind it.
"Nah, he is not really going to do what he says". Yup.
Is there any ideology not prone to this? Seems like a needlessly divisive point to include in this analysis. There is also common patterns in the devolution of progressives and revolutionaries. But that's obvious.
-------
I will add something. Religious tradition can be a great source and motivator to uphold human values. Let's focus on that.
I propose we move away from the concept of conservatism, as I get the feeling that for the US audience this is too political. Rather, let us answer the question whether we want to do good for our neighbour.
Authoritarians come in all ‘colors’.
If I say progressive, some people here might identify that with some mouth foaming marxist that will apologize any non free-market dictator.
Label progressive = human rights , not economic policy.
Any suggestion for a term that works better in your habitat is welcome!
It’s also economic policy.
None of that addresses my points either.
Empirically, a lot of ideologies are a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda, from Nazism through conservantism to the Big Leap Forward through progressism and many others in the middle.
What I learned from this general discussion though is that politics made a honest civil discourse difficult about these kinds of things.
Instead, we should talk about personally held values rather than sociological phenomena, as these have turned into political shibboleths.
Speaking of WWII, Joe Kennedy (John's father) was quite useful to the Nazis.
- We were talking about how conservatism has the weakness that it is particularly prone to siren songs of authoritarians.
- There are more bad things happening in the GOP with respect to the democratic constitutional state, but that is hardly a relief. The Dems might have their own idiots, sure, but there is no equivalency here.
- Perhaps I should not take the bait, but John Kennedy, the president, was not an anti-semite, unlike his father indeed, who was not president.
With progressiveness we are talking about progress in human and civil rights towards a more free society.
It does not mean you have to agree with all policies of them. Authoritarianism is a direct contradiction with progressiveness.
Ever heard about this Lenin guy?
> no serious human rights advocate today would vouch for that.
This is close to a no true Scotsman argument; virtually no older-than-30y.o. political movement would check all the boxes to be qualified as such.
Like seizing farmland from landowners and forming collectives to farm them instead (USSR).
Or forcing affirmative action despite no identifiable discriminatory actions. Which is literally openly happening right now in the West in tech and other areas.
It’s about forcing reality to confirm to an idealized ‘right’ way, despite objections or resistance - including often ignoring if the final situation/state even works. Example: Chinese Great Leap Forward and rural steel ‘mills’, USSR and collectivism, etc.
Putin is much more like a monarch: rich to the point that almost nothing makes him feel rich. Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting.
(He probably does excel at shooting)
Or perhaps he's more like an L Ron Hubbard with truly vast resources. Quixotic performative superiority.
That's not about his own psychology, but what the Russian people wanted to see in their leader. Near it's end, the USSR had long been led by decrepit old men, and no small amount of blame for the state of the state was laid on the way the country became a gerontocracy. Public displays of Putin's vigor and virility were important PR/propaganda. They came off as really weird in the west, but we were not the target audience for them.
After all, if your finance chief is loyal because you let him steal $10 million a year and he expects you to be in power for the next 10+ years, that's $100M+ for staying loyal.
If you're in poor health, though, and might only last 2 more years? Your finance chief is going to start thinking about who'll replace you. Earning that replacement's favour might be worth a lot more than the $20M he can expect from you.
Your military chief and police chief and religious chief are having similar thoughts, and before you know it your successor controls the treasury, armed forces and religion and you're forced into retirement or dead.
Granted, you can avoid the problem by having an obvious, powerful and deeply loyal successor. If Putin had a healthy young son he appointed the head of the armed forces he could be ill as much as he likes. But he doesn't have such a successor, so he's got to project an image of excellent health.
But he does have his weird obedient puppy Dmitry Medvedev. Whose plane, I imagine, will have some engine trouble on day one of the post-Putin era.
Putin doesn't have any fixed or strong beliefs. One moment he's a staunch "strong-hand" Stalinist, and another moment he's a pro-business economic liberal. And that's why Russia has no ideology, it's not a Nazi Germany or a Stalin's USSR.
His only goal is to preserve his personal power.
What makes you think that? I had the impression he is explicitly pro-Stalin.
see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffLqUwlY2Y
(Pugacheva denounced the SMO last year, many others decamped* for Israel, and there are a few artists who stayed despite being no longer in favour and are filming clips with their phones, but as far as I can tell hi budget videos are —and have been— pretty synonymous with toeing the Kremlin line)
* the first Новогодний Голубой огонек after the invasion had to pad out the audience with military members; I had been assuming that was because either too many artists (obviously сердючка included) were elsewhere or because they had refused to guarantee their support live on-air. Haven't watched this years' yet.
Well, he's said so.
(I can easily believe Putin would be happy to join in the Immortal Regiment parade while casting shade on the then-leader. Do any of the "Man Like Putin" lyrics refer to Stalin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUh9pThGdm4 — my russian isn't good enough to tell if the various contrasts have referents or not...)
Edit: upon reflection, if Putin were not behind the rehabilitation of Stalin, then who is?
Firstly, it's Lenin that he blames for Ukrainian autonomy - not Stalin. Secondly, Putin has evidently said that Stalin was a mixed blessing; he industrialized the Russian economy, and he defeated the Nazis, but the repression and murder he caused were wrong.
""The positives that undoubtedly existed were achieved at an unacceptable price. Repressions did take place. This is a fact. Millions of our fellow citizens suffered from them," Putin said.
"Such a way of running a state, of achieving results is unacceptable, this is impossible. We have not only lived through the personality cult but also witnessed mass crimes against our own nation."
So, apologies for misinformation.
Everything is a means to an end in a dictatorship, be it people, resources or truth. Times have changed, social contract has been broken. What lies ahead is repression, so Stalin needs a new dress.
So you are not wrong, but you should not mistake it as an ideological sincere stance.
I think you are talking specifically about the Memorial Project, that was documenting victims of Stalin's terror, and was dissolved by a Moscow judge in 2022?
I remember they were documenting the genocide of Finnish Ingrians among other Soviet crimes.
I guess one metric of repression is what parties are represented in a legislative assembly.
For instance, looking at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1932_German_federal_e...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_elec...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1933_German_parliamen...
things are still looking healthy in Mar 33 (my metric: no party has more delegates than all the other parties combined; others will obviously use different metrics) but Nov 33 is completely out of hand.
Looking at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Duma#Latest_election
the Duma at least has more than two parties, but isn't healthy by my metric. (the same occurs in the upper house)
When more repression arrives, either we'll see a Duma that's nearly 100% "ER and friends", or we'll see a Duma with the same parties but so ineffective that if Putin's horse were elected (it could easily commute from an office in the Moscow Manège?) it wouldn't be any worse than any other deputy.
(Being downvoted for this is a trip. Yes it's a joke, and hyperbole. But you know it is also true in substance.)