Writing in and largely about the United States, Howe and Strauss have of course said comparatively little about the largest political entity in geographic scope (Russia and the Soviet Union, depending upon the time). Most of us are far from experts on Russia (I included among them), but in the absence of any definitive statements about whether the Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Civil War constitute the Crisis in entirety, whether the Crisis includes the forced collectivization of the Soviet Union and the Great Purge, and whether the Great Patriotic War is another part of the Crisis.

I am satisfied that the Russian Civil War had a fair analogue in the American Civil War in that Russia was extremely polarized in its politics into intolerant, exclusive, militant camps... but with less gentlemanly character. The opposing White and Red sides sought to annihilate each other. War Communism failed, and New Economic Policy (NEP) afforded a short-lived respite before Stalin consolidated power and began a forced collectivization of agriculture. In the Great Purge, Stalin turned on many of his one-time allies. Stalin ran out of rivals to kill, but in 1941 began Operation Barbarossa. With the arguable exception of Poland the Second World War was waged with more ferocity than anywhere else.

The Soviet Union might have been tending away from a Crisis... but Hitler imposed a Crisis from elsewhere.

I don't consider the US Civil war and the Russian Civil wars to be especially analogous, except that they were 4T. But I will get into that later.

Although I have not lived in Russia as you have, Justin, I've long been fascinated by the end of the Romanov empire and that era of Russian history. From reading 19th century Russian lit and various bios as well as history which includes contemporary letters, reflections, etc., it's abundantly clear that the only people who didn't know the end of the autocracy was coming were the autocrats and some members of the aristocracy (and their minions). It was clear by the 1890s, among the intelligentsia anyway, that peaceful revolution was unlikely. The crack had come.

Although the sociopolitical system changed in almost all respects (and IMO for the better for the most part), how do you square Stalin with that change? I know there are members here who view Stalin in a different light than I do. I've read biographies (translated from the Russian) and dude was an autocrat.

I view Stalin as a step backward in many respects in terms of Russia's development. But given the country's history, he's understandable. I know there are others on this forum who don't view Stalin as I do. And I don't paint Lenin with the same brush as Stalin.

I don't view the Great Patriotic War as part of Russia's 4T. Just like I don't see Napoleon's Invasion of Russia as part of a 4T either. In both cases it was about the neighbors going crazy and it spilling over onto Russia's lawns after things had finally quieted down in the Russian "household" for lack of a better term. So I see both events similarly as happening sometime in a 1T or maybe even in the Napoleon scenario a 2T as the 1810s was seen as a pinnacle for Russia like the 1960s was for America.

One gets the feeling that the freeing of the serfs in the 1860s essentially created all the problems for the Russian system that they had to deal with by the 1890s - 1920s as then there was no way to support the autocratic lifestyle the Russian nobles had been able to live up in the 1810s in the glory days. In Russian literature that seems to be a major turning point.

~Chas'88

Heh. And then there was Gogol and Dead Souls.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I don't view the Great Patriotic War as part of Russia's 4T. Just like I don't see Napoleon's Invasion of Russia as part of a 4T either. In both cases it was about the neighbors going crazy and it spilling over onto Russia's lawns after things had finally quieted down in the Russian "household" for lack of a better term. So I see both events similarly as happening sometime in a 1T or maybe even in the Napoleon scenario a 2T as the 1810s was seen as a pinnacle for Russia like the 1960s was for America.

One gets the feeling that the freeing of the serfs in the 1860s essentially created all the problems for the Russian system that they had to deal with by the 1890s - 1920s as then there was no way to support the autocratic lifestyle the Russian nobles had been able to live up in the 1810s in the glory days. In Russian literature that seems to be a major turning point.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by annla899

I don't consider the US Civil war and the Russian Civil wars to be especially analogous, except that they were 4T. But I will get into that later.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't Lenin and Jefferson Davis wasn't Kolchak. The stage of the saeculum was much the same -- a 3T/4T cusp as in the USA in 1860 and in Russia in 1917. Obviously the political cultures were different. But in both cases the countries had polarized severely and compromise was impossible. Both the Whites and Reds were consummately ruthless and intolerant -- contrast the Union and Confederate sides who didn't see each other as vermin.

Although I have not lived in Russia as (has) Justin, I've long been fascinated by the end of the Romanov empire and that era of Russian history. From reading 19th century Russian lit and various bios as well as history which includes contemporary letters, reflections, etc., it's abundantly clear that the only people who didn't know the end of the autocracy was coming were the autocrats and some members of the aristocracy (and their minions). It was clear by the 1890s, among the intelligentsia anyway, that peaceful revolution was unlikely. The crack had come.

Russia had its little revolution in 1905-1906 in the wake of a military disaster known as the Russo-Japanese War. The Revolution compelled Nicholas II to allow an elected Duma, and for a while Russia had some semblance of a liberal democracy. But what the Tsar conceded he took back. He got an absolute veto over all legislation and the Duma became a meaningless institution, essentially a consultative body.

Unlike most other participants in the First World War, Russia was further away from its preceding Crisis -- and later into its saeculum. For Britain that was the Sepoy Rebellion. For France that was the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune. For Germany it was the Franco-Prussian War. For Austria it was the Austro-Prussian war. For Italy it was the unification crisis. For the US it was the Civil War. For Japan it was the Meiji Restoration.

Although the sociopolitical system changed in almost all respects (and IMO for the better for the most part), how do you square Stalin with that change? I know there are members here who view Stalin in a different light than I do. I've read biographies (translated from the Russian) and dude was an autocrat.

Stalin was the absolute ruler of the Soviet Union, a man whose word could get anyone murdered. Anyone who said that what he wanted was insane, absurd, or impossible would find out quickly how easy it is to kill someone. The collectivization of Soviet agriculture established a new form of serfdom -- and anyone who resisted that would be killed. Such is Crisis. Stalin's Great Purge exterminated any real or imaginable enemy... and of course gutted the higher ranks of the Soviet Armed Forces.

I view Stalin as a step backward in many respects in terms of Russia's development. But given the country's history, he's understandable. I know there are others on this forum who don't view Stalin as I do. And I don't paint Lenin with the same brush as Stalin.

Someone like Lenin was inevitable. Stalin exploited the weaknesses of a political structure that was blatantly undemocratic. It's easy to see that some other possible leader (Kirov? Bukharin?) would have done things differently.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Writing in and largely about the United States, Howe and Strauss have of course said comparatively little about the largest political entity in geographic scope (Russia and the Soviet Union, depending upon the time).

Agreed, though I would argue that S&H were writing for a primarily Anglo-American audience and as such the Russian-Soviet saeculum cycle would not be relevant to their books. That, however, doesn't mean that one cannot contemplate the Russian-Soviet saecular cycle (which is slightly different from Western Europe's).

Most of us are far from experts on Russia (I included among them), but in the absence of any definitive statements about whether the Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Civil War constitute the Crisis in entirety, whether the Crisis includes the forced collectivization of the Soviet Union and the Great Purge, and whether the Great Patriotic War is another part of the Crisis.

I would argue that the 4T of the last Tsarist Saeculum (for lack of a better name) would be from 1905 (or so) to 1928 (or so). Also collectivization was not forced--unless you consider the fact that once the order to collectivize 10% of the agriculture from the Central Committee had morphed into 100% by the time the Peasants heard of it.

I will not deny that that time period was rough, but the roughness of it was due primarily to the release of 300+ years of class hatreds rather than anything any leader could possibly do. Much of the excesses were quite frankly beyond the control of anyone, particularly Stalin.

I am satisfied that the Russian Civil War had a fair analogue in the American Civil War in that Russia was extremely polarized in its politics into intolerant, exclusive, militant camps... but with less gentlemanly character. The opposing White and Red sides sought to annihilate each other. War Communism failed, and New Economic Policy (NEP) afforded a short-lived respite before Stalin consolidated power and began a forced collectivization of agriculture. In the Great Purge, Stalin turned on many of his one-time allies. Stalin ran out of rivals to kill, but in 1941 began Operation Barbarossa. With the arguable exception of Poland the Second World War was waged with more ferocity than anywhere else.

I would argue that the collectivization period was 1T and that the purge was primarily a 1T event. It was also highly necessary in order to consolidate the country for the comming of WW2. If one looks at the history of Nazi Colaborators one finds very few in the Soviet Union even if they are everywhere everywhere else.

The Soviet Union might have been tending away from a Crisis... but Hitler imposed a Crisis from elsewhere.

The USSR Saeculum would have its breakdown as thus: 1T 1928-1941 (It would have lasted longer but the 4T of an other country cut it short). 2T 1941-1957-60 (Here we have the hight of Soviet science and technology as well as re-industrialization, the awakening was muted here though because I will argue that the Soviet Saeculum was a Mega "High" because the previous saeculum was a Mega-Crisis.) 3T 1960-1985-87. (The majority of the Brezhnev era was one of stagnation and decay.) 4T 1985-87-2001. (Russia and the USSR were in turmoil until Putin came on the scene--I know first hand because the first two times I visited Russia was in that time period.)

Russia is now in the second half of a 1T.

[QUOTE=pbrower2a;475207]Abraham Lincoln wasn't Lenin and Jefferson Davis wasn't Kolchak. The stage of the saeculum was much the same -- a 3T/4T cusp as in the USA in 1860 and in Russia in 1917. Obviously the political cultures were different. But in both cases the countries had polarized severely and compromise was impossible. Both the Whites and Reds were consummately ruthless and intolerant -- contrast the Union and Confederate sides who didn't see each other as vermin. [quote]

Pretty much agreed hence why I would say that the 4T for the "Last Romanov Saeculum" in Russia ended in 1928. Once Stalin consolidated power as General Secretary of the Party internal bickering died down tremendously apart for collectivization which as I said above had more to do with 300+ years of class hatred than any top down order.

Russia had its little revolution in 1905-1906 in the wake of a military disaster known as the Russo-Japanese War. The Revolution compelled Nicholas II to allow an elected Duma, and for a while Russia had some semblance of a liberal democracy. But what the Tsar conceded he took back. He got an absolute veto over all legislation and the Duma became a meaningless institution, essentially a consultative body.

Actually the Duma from the 1906 Russian constitution was designed as a meaningless institution. It did not become a meaningless institution. I have a copy of it in in a book containing constitutions for many countries from that time period (it was published in 1909).

Unlike most other participants in the First World War, Russia was further away from its preceding Crisis -- and later into its saeculum. For Britain that was the Sepoy Rebellion. For France that was the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune. For Germany it was the Franco-Prussian War. For Austria it was the Austro-Prussian war. For Italy it was the unification crisis. For the US it was the Civil War. For Japan it was the Meiji Restoration.

I would say that for Russia the preceding 4T to for the "Last Romanov Saeculum" would be the Decemberist Rebellion of 1825. The crushing of that rebellion by Nicolas I resulted in a century of revolutionary activity from bourgeois liberals, anarchists, Narodniks, and socialists (both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks).

I would argue in the "Last Romanov Saeculum" that defeat to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War was the catylist that sparked off intensified revolutionary activity.

Stalin was the absolute ruler of the Soviet Union, a man whose word could get anyone murdered.

Actually this was not true. Stalin had no real political power as far as a governmental official. He was leader of the ruling party and as such did have a great deal of power, but day to day function of the government was carried out by other people.

Furthermore, there were many people that Stalin would have liked to have had killed (and certainly deserved killing) who were not in the end killed, of course the opposite is also true too.

Anyone who said that what he wanted was insane, absurd, or impossible would find out quickly how easy it is to kill someone. The collectivization of Soviet agriculture established a new form of serfdom -- and anyone who resisted that would be killed. Such is Crisis. Stalin's Great Purge exterminated any real or imaginable enemy... and of course gutted the higher ranks of the Soviet Armed Forces.

First there are several historical problems here.

1. Collectivization was not forced. The problems of collectivization were of a bottom up characher rather than a top top down character.

2. Collectivization did not establish a new form of serfdom. Serfs are tied to the land of their farms. Soviet farmers if they chose to could leave and go work in a factory in the nearest city. If they did stay on the collectivized farm the farm itself was managed by a worker's council (or soviet) comprised of the farmers at that farm.

3. The Purge was a vital, and the purge of the military even more so. Fascism was rampant in the officer corps due to the practice of inviting Tsarist officers into the Red Army during the revolutionary stage. As such a purge was necessary to tie up loose ends from the preceeding 4T. A totally 1T phenomenon.

Someone like Lenin was inevitable. Stalin exploited the weaknesses of a political structure that was blatantly undemocratic. It's easy to see that some other possible leader (Kirov? Bukharin?) would have done things differently.

Kirov would have unlikely done much different than Stalin. The two were actually quite close if their letters to each other are anything to go by. Bukharin would have ended up destroying the USSR when Hitler invaded in 1941 because he wanted to focus on light industry before developing heavy industry. Given what history has shown us this would have meant that Russia would have been even more vulnerable to German invasion and were the Soviets defeated then most of Europe would be speaking German today.

Actually, I think that once you go north or east of Germany the European saeculum breaks down and you sort of enter different "worlds" as it were (a la world systems theory, not like... You're passing into another dimension).

-sigh-

Moving over from pbrower's dancing-on-graves thread:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If the Great Patriotic War was not a huge social upheaval, then what was?

The overthrow of a monarchy by a popular front consisting of several groups united primarily in their sense that the then-existing social system was fundamentally wrongful and needed to be violently removed. Then the subsequent consolidations-of-power and bloodlettings as the popular front, having achieved its uniting objective, split based on prescriptions for the shape of the future society. Culminating in a socioeconomic order which bore practically no resemblance whatsoever to the order that had held a generation earlier. And at the conclusion of which, society -- weary of conflict -- settled into that order and did its best to make the best of what it had, and to build on that with an eye towards a bright future.

Or, similarly close to eighty years after the beginning of the previous example, the overthrow of a command sociopolitical system by a popular front consisting of several groups united primarily in their sense that the then-existing social system was fundamentally wrongful and needed to be removed -- violently, if necessary. Then the subsequent consolidations-of-power as the popular front, having achieved its uniting objective, split based on prescriptions for the shape and management of the future society. Culminating in a socioeconomic order which bore practically no resemblance whatsoever to the order that had held a generation earlier. And at the conclusion of which, society -- weary of conflict -- settled into that order and did its best to make the best of what it had, and to build on that with an eye towards a bright future.

WWII killed a lot of Russians, but the Russian society that came out of it and the Russian society that went into it are nearly indistinguishable. That's not how turning-changes work.

Like I said, the last and second-to-last Russian 4T eras are practically textbook examples of what a Crisis era is. If anything, Russia fits the generational theory better than the USA, since there's no need to invent a half-baked, mechanism-free 'anomaly' to force a theoretical pattern to square up with real history.

It apparently bears periodic repeating: Generational theory revolves around social cycles and social changes. Wars, economic collapses, and the music of filthy hippies are all nonfundamental potential details -- nothing more or less.

For the moment, and the hell of it, let's set aside the fact that clear fundamental socioeconomic changes happened in Russia 80 years separated from each other, and that WWII* did not happen even remotely concurrently to those times of change. Let's also set aside the fact that a very clear Russian 2T period kicked off a mere couple of years after the end of WWII. And let us further set aside the fact that Russians my age show the characteristics of midlife Civics, while Russians of my parents' age show equally-clear characteristics of elderly Nomads. And let's set aside the undeniable 1T character of Russian society since around the turn of the millennium.

Set all that aside, and we're still left with a fatal problem with your thirty-year-Crisis theory. To repeat one of the fundamental axioms of the generational theory: "Generations create history, and history creates generations". The Crisis era ends when the Nomads who were the middle-managers during that era age out of that role and take on the role of elders. It ends when the Civic generation who formed the backbone of the strong backs and shoulders on and by which the Crisis was played out age out of that role and take on the role of middle managers for society. It ends when the Artist generation who were born while the adults in their society were greatly occupied in the Crisis grow up to become the young adults from whom society primarily seeks stability and conformity.

In order for the Crisis in Russia to have lasted thirty years, the Nomad generation would have had to delay by a full decade their becoming elders (how?); the Civics would have had to remain the grunt laborers of the conflict well into their forties (how? and why?); the Artists would have had to remain protected children until some of them were almost thirty years old (??!!).

What could possibly have made this happen? The word 'anomaly' is an empirical observation, not an explanation or a theory. So by what mechanism could a set of generations' evolution through the stages of life be delayed? The proposed American Civil War anomaly suggests that generations can, thanks to extreme hardship, be pushed to occupy new stages of life before their time. This, at least, is conceivable -- it's easy to imagine, for example, a generation of kids who are forced by circumstances to grow up fast and assume adult responsibilities and role before many of them might be ready. But the reverse? What possible set of circumstances would cause a generation of kids to not move into adulthood for a full extra decade?

Until that question is answered, all the similarities you might think you see in your coloring-book version of history are irrelevant. No mechanism means it didn't happen.


*you call it the "Great Patriotic War", which while technically accurate, relies nonetheless on a somewhat archaic use of english terms which results in a significant connotation-shift. The Russian word "Отечественная" is an adjectival form of the word "отечество", which itself is rooted in the word "отец" - "father". From latin roots, the English word goes, "Pater" (father) - "Patria" (my father's land) - "Patriotic" (having to do with my father's land).
Where you run into problems is that the modern English word "Patriotic" necessarily means also love-of-country, as well as having strong emotional connotation along the lines of nationalism. The Russian word отечественный does not -- rather it is a purely factual descriptor indicating that a thing relates to a place to which the speaker's father is connected. The Russian alternate name (they also call it вторая мировая война [second world war]) for the war means precisely "the Great War for the Land of Our Fathers".
There is a different Russian word that means 'patriot' in the modern english sense of love-of-country and so forth. It's "Патриот" (sounds just like the english word). That word or the adjectival "патриотическый" is never applied as a descriptor of the Soviets' fighting off the German invasion of Russia.
This perhaps seems like minor quibbling, but it is not. The inappropriate context that gets slipped in by the use of "Great Patriotic War" appears to me to directly affect the way people imagine Russian society and its relation to the war to have been. And not in a way particularly corresponding to reality, either.

Turnings create younger generations and older generations create Turnings. It takes a certain kind of attitude only aged Prophets and fully-adult Nomads are capable of to sustain a "Crisis" attitude. Once the leading edge Artists come of age, they will fight in the Crisis War if the problems haven't been resolved yet, but the ferocity tapers off and society is willing to settle for any sort of peace.

Not every Crisis ends with a civilization achieving universal peace. If a centralized strongman state leader decides a century of war is in the best interest of the nation, that's what they'll get. See the Hundred Year's War, the Crusades, the current Middle East, etc. The Napoleonic Wars after the French Revolution died down could be another example.

But, Turnings create younger Generations. If WWII in Russia was brutal enough to cause the children born 1930-1945 to be raised as Artists, and if the recovery was as tough as another Depression and not the dawning of a new optimistic world, either the start of the Prophet Generation is pushed up or the Saeculum goes without. It's fair to say the Bolshevik Revolution was a poorly handled Crisis, like the American Civil War, that started too soon and too hard and ended with unresolved fatal flaws. An examination of the 99 years since WWI is instructive to figure out Russia's timing. How communism fell with such a minimum level of violence is exhibit A.

Originally Posted by chrono117

How communism fell with such a minimum level of violence is exhibit A.

Communism fell during the Russian 3T (a time of decaying institutions) in the 60s and 70s. The remnant power-structure was wiped out, and a new system settled out on top through very real violence during the 4T period of the 80s and 90s. But communism as an ideology was full-on dead well before then.

Open gun battles on the streets of Moscow.
Fucking tanks blowing holes in the fucking parliament.

These are violent. As are the numerous shootouts, grenade-tossings, firebombings, and other various massively-violent goings-on that characterized the 90s (the 'shake-out' part of the Crisis' new-system-coming-out-on-top). Ask any Russian person who lived through it; their 4T was chaotic, harsh, violent, and dangerous, and came to a clear -- almost abrupt end when the current social structure was settled.

But, in any case, violence is neither an exclusive, nor a defining, nor even a necessary feature of a 4T era. Those are, rather, explicitly identified by a widespread determination within a society that their socio-politico-economic structure is no good and has to go, itself resulting in a fundamental change in that aforementioned structure. What happened in the 80s and 90s in Russia was exactly such a thing. And it came perfectly-timed to be able to count back and see that, for whatever reasons, the children born in Russia during WWII were members of the relatively-later cohort of a Prophet-generation. The generation born roughly starting in the early 50s still is easily and clearly identifiable by both their generational character, and by the overall course of their lives' stories, as a Nomad generation. My peers there are all Civics (again, identifiable by the fact that they match the defining characteristics of that generation). My kids' peers are Prophets -- identifiable less so by their own personalities, but unambiguously by the way their society relates to them.

The nice thing about cycles is that they read just as well backwards as forwards.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

WWII killed a lot of Russians, but the Russian society that came out of it and the Russian society that went into it are nearly indistinguishable. That's not how turning-changes work.

The concept you are trying to get across is pretty clear. A society will tend to reconfigure themselves in a fourth turning and this did not happen to Russia in thirties and forties the way it did for the rest of the Europe and the United States. In the case of the United States there was no outward change in governmental forms but its relationship to the rest of society changed dramatically. Naturally, this is only one example of the many societal changes that took place at that time. You are making a good case for saying that Russia had their fourth turning about twenty years ago which does explain a number of things which have puzzled me about Russia the last few years.

Originally Posted by Galen

A society will tend to reconfigure themselves in a fourth turning and this did not happen to Russia in thirties and forties the way it did for the rest of the Europe and the United States.

Societies don't "tend to" reconfigure themselves during Crisis eras. Reconfiguration-of-society -- not war, not economic collapse, not high or low birthrates, not noisy politicians -- is the defining characteristic of a Crisis era.

You are making a good case for saying that Russia had their fourth turning about twenty years ago which does explain a number of things which have puzzled me about Russia the last few years.

Everywhere is puzzling from the outside. At the same time, it can get a lot clearer if you move from outsider to local. Get a job, pay bills, build a house, send your kids to school, spend time in the hospital, help your neighbors butcher their livestock, get to know the cops who live in your village, go to funerals. It's lack of exposure that makes many things opaque. West Virginia makes no sense to pretty much any Russian, either.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Societies don't "tend to" reconfigure themselves during Crisis eras. Reconfiguration-of-society -- not war, not economic collapse, not high or low birthrates, not noisy politicians -- is the defining characteristic of a Crisis era.

Exactly, I should have not use the phrase "tend to". This is the main reason I think Eric the Obtuse and the rest of the liberals are going to be very surprised at how this fourth turning turns out. They have been assuming that we are going to have a replay of the thirties with the same result. I don't think so because that would mean that the society coming out of this fourth turning would pretty much be the same one going in.

Originally Posted by Galen

The concept (Justin'77 is) trying to get across is pretty clear. A society will tend to reconfigure themselves in a fourth turning and this did not happen to Russia in thirties and forties the way it did for the rest of the Europe and the United States. In the case of the United States there was no outward change in governmental forms but its relationship to the rest of society changed dramatically. Naturally, this is only one example of the many societal changes that took place at that time. You are making a good case for saying that Russia had their fourth turning about twenty years ago which does explain a number of things which have puzzled me about Russia the last few years.

My explanation remains "waves" of 4T Crisis. Until early 1917 Russia was in a depraved and severe Degeneracy, and what was a 3T war elsewhere (a diplomat-directed, meat-grinder war) hit Russia later in its Saeculum. Incompetence of the coterie surrounding the Romanov court led to social ruin at the same time as a succession of military debacles. In February 1917 a palace coup toppled the Tsar, but that was too little, too late. The Kerensky government could not extricate itself gracefully from a war going badly as its principal enemy sought an unconditional surrender for all practical purposes. Lenin was willing to sue for degrading terms of peace so that he could have his revolution, and the German General Staff thus found him useful (in view of events of the next 80 or so years that would prove a huge miscalculation).

The Bolshevik Revolution was a 4T event -- the near-start. But it led promptly to the Russian Civil War, which I describe as having the carnage of the American Civil War... but no mercy between opposing sides who sought to extirpate each other. I'm going to suggest NEP as a sort of Reconstruction, and such might have led to a Marxist analogue of the American Gilded Age, a 1T.

Stalin put an end to that with the insane collectivization of agriculture with a bloodletting comparable to a Crisis war. That was indisputably a reconfiguration of society, one unprecedented in modern times. Follow that with the Great Purge of the Party and the Armed Forces.

Stalin may not have wanted war with the Third Reich. Unlike western appeasers he chose to slice up eastern Europe in complicity with Hitler. He imposed Crisis-like change on all territories that he annexed -- the Baltic countries, eastern interwar Poland, and northeastern interwar Romania -- complete with destruction of institutions and severe bloodletting. Stalin might have believed that his complicity in destroying Poland would put him on good terms with Hitler. Finland was offered to Stalin, but somehow the Finns put up an effective and unlikely resistance under the leadership of Carl Mannerheim (a prime example of a 4T Grey Champion like Sir Winston Churchill, FDR, or Abraham Lincoln) and kept their independence.

Nazi Germany was undeniably 4T throughout its existence. It radically transformed the political structure and practice of Germany and Austria. It turned free workers into serfs with no meaningful choice and no defense against the rapacious exploitation of economic elites. It established one racist culture with no room for plurality -- and of course it turned its Model Minority (Jews) into pariahs.

On June 22, 1941 Adolf Hitler imposed the sort of 4T that he had imposed upon Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece -- and tried to force upon Britain -- upon the Soviet Union. Hitler's armies besieged Leningrad for 900 or so horrible days, approached Moscow, and advanced as far as Stalingrad. Hitler started killing Jews in Poland in September 1939 and loosed his death squads upon every Jew behind the front. Hitler imposed systemic brutality and exploitation that shocked the world. The Holocaust begaqn with mass shootings in Poland, then Russia, then elsewhere in Europe.

Stalin may not have wanted a 4T war... but he got it. Except that he was no moral leader who could pose as a Grey Champion, he encouraged one of the greatest mass-migrations in human history with Soviet industry moving from west to east so that arms could be produced. Scorched-earth policies left nothing for the Nazis. Stalin did not wage a prissy war, and he left no quarter to any captured Germans that he did not want to survive.

In its advance from the Volga to Vienna, Prague, and Berlin the Red Army fought savagely -- and Stalin forced revolutionary change upon countries either liberated (Poland, Czechoslovakia) or conquered (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and eastern Germany). Old land-owning elites were dispossessed and any imaginable opposition might have been allowed to surface for a short time -- only to be identified by the local Commies who would then incarcerate or murder them. During WWII, Stalin had his own ethnic cleansing to relocate (violently and with much death) peoples accused of collaboration or potential collaboration with the Nazis. Stalin may have retaliated against Hitler with 4T ferocity as the result of Nazi provocation, but his behavior was distinctly 4T.

Stalin willingly participated with the British and Americans in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes, not all of them in the Soviet Union or to Soviet POWs or civilian slave labor.

First wave of Crisis -- Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Civil War; War Communism
Abortive respite -- NEP
Second wave of Crisis -- collectivization and the Great Purge.
Abortive respite -- post-purge years and the first 21 months of World War II
Third wave of Crisis -- Great Patriotic War

Crises can have one wave of apocalyptic horror and social danger (in American history, the American Civil War) or two (the American Revolution and post-Revolution chaos; the Great Depression and World War II). Three? Maybe, as in the case of Russia, if the third wave is imposed from elsewhere.

That's an awesome coloring-book narrative you have there, pbrower. So.. according to you, this uber-being, this... "Stalin", was able to keep an entire cohort of twenty- and twenty-five-year-olds from assuming the roles of young adults in their society. By the force (apparently) of his own will and own determination.

That's quite an impressive achievement.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's an awesome coloring-book narrative you have there, pbrower. So.. according to you, this uber-being, this... "Stalin", was able to keep an entire cohort of twenty- and twenty-five-year-olds from assuming the roles of young adults in their society. By the force (apparently) of his own will and own determination.

That's quite an impressive achievement.

But, but... Hitler, Stalin, Holocaust, Goering, Tyrant, Nazi, Republican, Robert E. Lee, Soviet, Slavery, Koch, Fascist, Corporate, Communism, Despot, Oppressor, George W. Bush!

(just trying to be nice and save him some time)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's an awesome coloring-book narrative you have there, pbrower. So.. according to you, this uber-being, this... "Stalin", was able to keep an entire cohort of twenty- and twenty-five-year-olds from assuming the roles of young adults in their society. By the force (apparently) of his own will and own determination.

That's quite an impressive achievement.

That is precisely his theory on the Russian saecular cycle Justin. And I'm the one accused of worshiping Uncle Joe. Make no mistake the man was a giant among pygmies but he had no such power to retard the development of an entire generation. No man has such powers. No man can have such powers--no matter how great, horrible, good, evil or any other adjective one could use to describe such a leader.

Also Justin, since you're in Russia now (or at least that is my understanding) would you agree that the break down for the USSR saeculum would be as follows:

4T: 1905-1928 (Last Romanov Saeculum)

1T: 1928-1941 (USSR Saeculum)
2T: 1941-1957 [or 1960] (USSR Saeculum)
3T: 1957[or 1960] - 1985 (USSR Saeculum)
4T: 1985 - 2001 [to maybe 2005] (USSR Saeculum)

************************************************** ****************************

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Also Justin, since you're in Russia now (or at least that is my understanding) would you agree that the break down for the USSR saeculum would be as follows:

4T: 1905-1928 (Last Romanov Saeculum)

1T: 1928-1941 (USSR Saeculum)
2T: 1941-1957 [or 1960] (USSR Saeculum)
3T: 1957[or 1960] - 1985 (USSR Saeculum)
4T: 1985 - 2001 [to maybe 2005] (USSR Saeculum)

Nope. (And I'm not there at the moment; we're in Florida at the moment working on figuring our way back, but nothing concrete enough yet)

The trick is that the USSR was never a unified society. The Baltics, for example, were, and remain, on their own generational timing -- at least as far as my brief times there hinted, and my tocayo in Talinn seems to have confirmed-to-satisfaction. In any case, places that were annexed into, or joined, the USSR well after the Revolution seem to have split off and gone their own ways and seem in several cases at least not to have suffered a synchronizing of their generational cycles to the Russian one. That's why I take care to indicate that I am talking about the Russian cycle -- which may or may not include Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Georgia, etc, etc... I don't know and can't say.

In any case, I'd date the Russian 4T from right around the Revolution to right around the last days of the NEP -- by the time Stalin* took the reins, the Russian people had clearly had enough of sociopolitical and economic chaos, and were ready to quit fighting and focus on stability and building for the future. The 1T seems to have run its course by the late 40s -- certainly you see clear moral pushback by the younger generations against the things that, while earlier perceived as necessary components of stability and prosperity, were now seen as repressions and moral wrongs. So I'd tentatively put the 2T starting around there, running until the late 60s. Starting somewhere around that time, you start to run across an apparent increasing awareness that the ideology underlying and justifying the then-current sociopolitical structure was not only not something currently working, but in fact possibly not even a thing that could work. The life stories of my peers -- actually, people maybe 10 years older than me, so early-civics -- rhyme very heavily with such life stories (such as I have heard them) of my '85-born younger brother and his peers. Somewhere in the early 80s, the decaying remnants of the public's faith in the system and their willingness to try to fix the system were finally gone for all practical purposes. To pick at semi-arbitrary, the Chernobyl disaster probably happened right around the beginning of the Russian 4T.
Dating the present 1T is a bit easier. Most any adult Russian already knows the border (around 2000-2001), since to the very last, every one that I know on his own divides time into 'back when things were shitty' and 'now that things aren't shitty' -- and the break in all cases is quick and right around that time. Probably the last big smash of the 4T was the '98 ruble default -- one good friend of mine tells the story of heading out of town on his days off to go fishing, stopping for gas on the way back home and being told when he tried to pay that "that isn't money anymore". Crazy shit, that.

My guess is that sometime in the next 5-7 years, our oldest son's classmates are going to start getting noisy. My sincere hope is that they obliterate Russian society's hundreds-years-old (read Chekhov -- he wrote about it as old and ubiquitous even in his day) complacent acceptance of corruption in high places. The oligarchs -- both in and out of political power -- could definitely stand to feel a lot less secure. But who know? Maybe teh detiy willl find religion instead...

---
*"Stalin" used as a convenient dating mechanism, not a comic book villain. Concurrent, not causative.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nope. (And I'm not there at the moment; we're in Florida at the moment working on figuring our way back, but nothing concrete enough yet)

Well I understand the feeling. While I'm not trying to get back to Russia, I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be than "Not Florida". I'm a native of the state, and I've never really liked it here. I've always prefered the northern states for some reason.

The trick is that the USSR was never a unified society. The Baltics, for example, were, and remain, on their own generational timing -- at least as far as my brief times there hinted, and my tocayo in Talinn seems to have confirmed-to-satisfaction. In any case, places that were annexed into, or joined, the USSR well after the Revolution seem to have split off and gone their own ways and seem in several cases at least not to have suffered a synchronizing of their generational cycles to the Russian one. That's why I take care to indicate that I am talking about the Russian cycle -- which may or may not include Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Georgia, etc, etc... I don't know and can't say.

I understand. I was not trying to say that the Soviet Union was a single nation (as per Stalin in Marxism and the National Question) but rather as a federal state composed of several hundred nations of which the Russians are the largest. That being said I would argue that Ukraine and Belarus are on the same or very similar saecular patters with Russia due to their history and culture. I cannot say about the Baltics, Central Asian or Caucasus republics. They may be on the Russian cycle, they may be on the Western cycle (probably the Baltic States), or they may be on their own cycle.

In any case, I'd date the Russian 4T from right around the Revolution to right around the last days of the NEP -- by the time Stalin* took the reins, the Russian people had clearly had enough of sociopolitical and economic chaos, and were ready to quit fighting and focus on stability and building for the future. The 1T seems to have run its course by the late 40s -- certainly you see clear moral pushback by the younger generations against the things that, while earlier perceived as necessary components of stability and prosperity, were now seen as repressions and moral wrongs. So I'd tentatively put the 2T starting around there, running until the late 60s. Starting somewhere around that time, you start to run across an apparent increasing awareness that the ideology underlying and justifying the then-current sociopolitical structure was not only not something currently working, but in fact possibly not even a thing that could work. The life stories of my peers -- actually, people maybe 10 years older than me, so early-civics -- rhyme very heavily with such life stories (such as I have heard them) of my '85-born younger brother and his peers. Somewhere in the early 80s, the decaying remnants of the public's faith in the system and their willingness to try to fix the system were finally gone for all practical purposes. To pick at semi-arbitrary, the Chernobyl disaster probably happened right around the beginning of the Russian 4T.

It seems that we're pretty much agreed on the 1T and 2T of the USSR Saeculum it seems. Would you think it may be possible that the onset of a 2T was delayed by the war? It seems due to the reading of many works from people in the soviet union of the time period just before the War that many of the younger people were wanting to liberalize some of the institutions (although be it in minute tweaks here and there--quite an Artist archetype thing) right before the war. However, it didn't start to catch full swing until after the war--due to the fact that the war itself was a fight for national survival (even though it did not happen in a 4T--rather I would argue it was the 4T of an other country spilling over into Russia).

I would say that the Brezhnev* stagnation was as classic 3T as it gets.

Dating the present 1T is a bit easier. Most any adult Russian already knows the border (around 2000-2001), since to the very last, every one that I know on his own divides time into 'back when things were shitty' and 'now that things aren't shitty' -- and the break in all cases is quick and right around that time. Probably the last big smash of the 4T was the '98 ruble default -- one good friend of mine tells the story of heading out of town on his days off to go fishing, stopping for gas on the way back home and being told when he tried to pay that "that isn't money anymore". Crazy shit, that.

One of my Russian friends (who is also a communist) told me of a time about 1999 when he paid for a tank of gas with vodka. And his wife (who I know less well) used cigarettes to buy food about the same time. I think they also said that dollars and Deuschemarks were used (or was it Euros--I can't really remember, we were drinking pretty heavily).

My guess is that sometime in the next 5-7 years, our oldest son's classmates are going to start getting noisy. My sincere hope is that they obliterate Russian society's hundreds-years-old (read Chekhov -- he wrote about it as old and ubiquitous even in his day) complacent acceptance of corruption in high places. The oligarchs -- both in and out of political power -- could definitely stand to feel a lot less secure. But who know? Maybe teh detiy willl find religion instead...

I don't know. That complacency is pretty culturally ingrained. I suppose the time though could be right on a mega-saeculum level (seeing as I theorize that the Last Romanov Saeculum was a Mega-Crisis, and the USSR Saeculum was a Mega-High).


--

*Note: Using Brezhnev as a convenient dating mechanism.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's an awesome coloring-book narrative you have there, pbrower. So.. according to you, this uber-being, this... "Stalin", was able to keep an entire cohort of twenty- and twenty-five-year-olds from assuming the roles of young adults in their society. By the force (apparently) of his own will and own determination.

That's quite an impressive achievement.

Of course a dubious achievement because it implies serial mass murder. Stalin as an evil superman? Maybe. But he could thoroughly dominate 24 years of an empire's history. Like Hitler he was a Crisis in his own right. But Hitler could dominate only twelve years in Germany before his end came with the Soviet Army closing in on him.

Horrific as The Great Patriotic War was it likely gave its veterans some empowerment that allowed them to command respect long after the war. I can also imagine its severity stunting youth who could never live up to the deeds of their seniors in a time of comparative peace.

Stalin tried to force a sort of Crisis of his own, a fourth wave -- through the Doctor's Plot. It fizzled, probably because by the early 1950s the Soviet Union could take no more mass purges.

But let's look at some of the patterns of Russian and Soviet generations. Their equivalent of the American Missionaries was the Bolshevik Generation that included the (not surprisingly!) the Old Bolsheviks but also the Nicholas II and many of the White leaders (Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel, etc.) and the historically (if not personally) tragic Kerensky. I'd label the generation of Lenin and at least Trotsky the Bolshevik Generation because the Bolsheviks triumphed completely.

Then comes a Reactive generation, the bulk of the young soldiers of World War I. They were made huge promises in return for becoming cannon fodder and turned against the rotten Establishment when it failed and that it could never meet its promises. The image that I get is of the soldiers marching enthusiastically to the front with their fine new uniforms at the start of the war -- and who lost their enthusiasm as defeat became inevitable and supplies failed (Doctor Zhivago, Boris Pasternak). To be sure there were many young Bolsheviks from this generation, but they did not -- and could never -- shape the order except to be the hatchetmen of Josef Stalin. Those that Stalin began to distrust... died. But note well the excellent military commanders of the Soviet Union in World War II -- Zhukov, Timoshenko... Reactive generations make excellent generals.

But whatever entrepreneurial tendencies they had... Stalin smashed. All had to be done for the glory of a State increasingly entwined with his personality and 'vision'.

Following this generation came those who could never have become adults until the consolidation of the Soviet state, contemporaries of America's GI Generation. I am tempted to call them the "Soviet" Generation because their adulthood was almost entirely during the Soviet era. Like our GIs they were educated to do things on a big scale... if with no intellectual subtlety. They were the builders of giant dams and other showy projects. They stood for rational science at its purest. Maybe because many of them were war veterans and because Stalin died in 1951 they were still young enough to see something wrong with Stalin... after Khrushchev's Secret Speech.

This is only a start of the discussion. I look at the late 1980s as a time when libertarian strengthened everywhere that they could not be repressed. The collapse of Communism in the Soviet bloc demonstrates what happens when an unavoidable tendency -- the libertarian tendency of a 3T -- smashes into a decadent and discreditable, collectivist order that can no longer get mass support.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

But, but... Hitler, Stalin, Holocaust, Goering, Tyrant, Nazi, Republican, Robert E. Lee, Soviet, Slavery, Koch, Fascist, Corporate, Communism, Despot, Oppressor, George W. Bush!

(just trying to be nice and save him some time)

Much of history is an obscene tale written in the blood of the innocent. So it is with wars, revolutions, assassinations, purges, crackdowns, and enslavement. We learn from it lest it repeat itself anew with a fresh harvest of blood and suffering.


This message is hidden because Copperfield is on your ignore list.
View Post

Remove user from ignore list



Fixed!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Much of history is an obscene tale written in the blood of the innocent. So it is with wars, revolutions, assassinations, purges, crackdowns, and enslavement. We learn from it lest it repeat itself anew with a fresh harvest of blood and suffering.

Yes, but this is true no matter what turning you're in. The US bombed tons and tons of people throughout the 3T. Joe McCarthy was a big player in our 1T. Vietnam, an endless war, was a major part of our 2T. But we were still in a 1 and a 3T.