And then of course there's global warming/climate change, from which Russia literally benefits in two vital respects:

Last week on one of my nights off I happen to stumble on a documentary concerning the "Northeast Passage," which skims Russia's Arctic coastline. Due to the recent rise in the Earth's temperature - the origin of which of course being a hotly controversial and fascinating topic! - the ice-free lane extending from the coast has both widened, and the amount of time each summer it remains open has lengthened. They had this Russian government official on there, and he glowingly spoke of this passage becoming "our Suez Canal."

Second, new farmland is opening up on the southern margins of Siberia - a key issue as the breakup of the Soviet Union deprived Russia of so much said land.

So you can expect Russia to join China and India in impeding any Al Gore/Barack Obama-led efforts to limit carbon emissions.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And then of course there's global warming/climate change, from which Russia literally benefits in two vital respects:

Last week on one of my nights off I happen to stumble on a documentary concerning the "Northeast Passage," which skims Russia's Arctic coastline. Due to the recent rise in the Earth's temperature - the origin of which of course being a hotly controversial and fascinating topic! - the ice-free lane extending from the coast has both widened, and the amount of time each summer it remains open has lengthened. They had this Russian government official on there, and he glowingly spoke of this passage becoming "our Suez Canal."

Second, new farmland is opening up on the southern margins of Siberia - a key issue as the breakup of the Soviet Union deprived Russia of so much said land.

So you can expect Russia to join China and India in impeding any Al Gore/Barack Obama-led efforts to limit carbon emissions.

Canada could also stand to benefit from global warming, in the precise same two ways.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Canada could also stand to benefit from global warming, in the precise same two ways.

Indeed, the same documentary covered that subject, and pointed out that Churchill, Manitoba, on the Hudson Bay, has already become a "boom town" of sorts.

In another thread I wrote that some countries don't necessarily follow the S&H cycle of alternating High-Awakening-Unraveling-Crisis-High-and so on. I wrote that only an ideal system can follow this cycle in a mannerly way, such a system that is not perturbed by external factors.

I re-read parts of The Fourth Turning and I saw taht S&H describe different views of history. They name the linear, the chaotic, and the cyclical view. Even though I personally dont really support either of these views, I can see the chaotic view of history.

I re-read S&H definitions of each turning and I tried to apply the turning descriptions to different time periods in Russia. So here goes my chaotic history... Justin, please don' kick me in the head too much for what I am about to write...

1861-c.1880, Crisis, Emancipation of serfs, Russo-Turkish War
c. 1880-1905, Awakening, assassinations of tsars, anarchist and socialist movements, Russo-Japanese War (poorly fought and badly remembered), Revolution of 1905
1905-1914, Unraveling, decay of tsarist order
1914-1922, Crisis, WWI, Revolution, Russian Civil War
1922-1928, Unraveling, NEP
1928-1933, Crisis, rise of stalin, collectivization, de-kulakization, formation of military-industrial complex
1933-1940, High, stalinist mass purges
1940-1948, Crisis, WWII (Great Patriotic War), post-War ruin in cities
1948-1953, High, last years of stalinist rule and early Cold War
1953-1964, Awakening, Khruschev Melting Era
1964-c.1972, High, attempts to rehabilitate stalin, crackdown of any dissent
c.1972-1985, Unraveling (with many signs of a High), Era of Stagnation
1985-1991, Awakening, Gorbachev's reforms, glasnost
1991-1993, Crisis, break-up of USSR, October coup
1993-1999, Unraveling, very nasty period of economic hardship with lots of drugs, disco, rave, sex, and prostitution
1999-2004, Crisis, rise of Putin
2004-?, High (with lots of signs of an Unraveling)

I wrote a similar post on US.

I don't mean to defy or deny the S&H theory by any means.
I had just offered a creative alternative opinion and I just want to know what you all think.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

In another thread I wrote that some countries don't necessarily follow the S&H cycle of alternating High-Awakening-Unraveling-Crisis-High-and so on. I wrote that only an ideal system can follow this cycle in a mannerly way, such a system that is not perturbed by external factors.

I re-read parts of The Fourth Turning and I saw taht S&H describe different views of history. They name the linear, the chaotic, and the cyclical view. Even though I personally dont really support either of these views, I can see the chaotic view of history.

I re-read S&H definitions of each turning and I tried to apply the turning descriptions to different time periods in Russia. So here goes my chaotic history... Justin, please don' kick me in the head too much for what I am about to write...

1861-c.1880, Crisis, Emancipation of serfs, Russo-Turkish War
c. 1880-1905, Awakening, assassinations of tsars, anarchist and socialist movements, Russo-Japanese War (poorly fought and badly remembered), Revolution of 1905
1905-1914, Unraveling, decay of tsarist order
1914-1922, Crisis, WWI, Revolution, Russian Civil War
1922-1928, Unraveling, NEP
1928-1933, Crisis, rise of stalin, collectivization, de-kulakization, formation of military-industrial complex
1933-1940, High, stalinist mass purges
1940-1948, Crisis, WWII (Great Patriotic War), post-War ruin in cities
1948-1953, High, last years of stalinist rule and early Cold War
1953-1964, Awakening, Khruschev Melting Era
1964-c.1972, High, attempts to rehabilitate stalin, crackdown of any dissent
c.1972-1985, Unraveling (with many signs of a High), Era of Stagnation
1985-1991, Awakening, Gorbachev's reforms, glasnost
1991-1993, Crisis, break-up of USSR, October coup
1993-1999, Unraveling, very nasty period of economic hardship with lots of drugs, disco, rave, sex, and prostitution
1999-2004, Crisis, rise of Putin
2004-?, High (with lots of signs of an Unraveling)

I wrote a similar post on US.

I don't mean to defy or deny the S&H theory by any means.
I had just offered a creative alternative opinion and I just want to know what you all think.

-You'll have to count me as "skeptical".

1) In between the Crises (4Ts) and Awakenings (2Ts), you'd probably have a High (1T), even if it were just one year long;

2) You're Turnings after 1905 are generally less than 10 years long. Since Turnings occur & change as the generations change, you'd have generational line-ups which match the turnings (sort of). I don't see how that would work, since even if the generational boundaries were brief enough to fit the turnings, you'd still probably end up with oddities like Idealist-Prophets being created at the end of 3Ts, or a lot of Adaptive-Artists fully in charge in the middle of a Crisis...

Maybe we should see you're suggestion for generational line-ups.

Justin,

I think you missed this in the Libertarian thread:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...Obviously, even you don't think that the USA is as bad as you claim...

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

We better knock it off with the Russians, because they're taking over Staten Island!

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Canada could also stand to benefit from global warming, in the precise same two ways.

Yup. Cause if Cape Cod goes underwater before I retire... there's always the Maritimes ;-)

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

We better knock it off with the Russians, because they're taking over Staten Island!

Not to mention East Vancouver, WA. One more reason to make English the official language of the United States Of America.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

In another thread I wrote that some countries don't necessarily follow the S&H cycle of alternating High-Awakening-Unraveling-Crisis-High-and so on. I wrote that only an ideal system can follow this cycle in a mannerly way, such a system that is not perturbed by external factors.

I re-read parts of The Fourth Turning and I saw taht S&H describe different views of history. They name the linear, the chaotic, and the cyclical view. Even though I personally dont really support either of these views, I can see the chaotic view of history.

I re-read S&H definitions of each turning and I tried to apply the turning descriptions to different time periods in Russia. So here goes my chaotic history... Justin, please don' kick me in the head too much for what I am about to write...

1861-c.1880, Crisis, Emancipation of serfs, Russo-Turkish War
c. 1880-1905, Awakening, assassinations of tsars, anarchist and socialist movements, Russo-Japanese War (poorly fought and badly remembered), Revolution of 1905
1905-1914, Unraveling, decay of tsarist order
1914-1922, Crisis, WWI, Revolution, Russian Civil War
1922-1928, Unraveling, NEP
1928-1933, Crisis, rise of stalin, collectivization, de-kulakization, formation of military-industrial complex
1933-1940, High, stalinist mass purges
1940-1948, Crisis, WWII (Great Patriotic War), post-War ruin in cities
1948-1953, High, last years of stalinist rule and early Cold War
1953-1964, Awakening, Khruschev Melting Era
1964-c.1972, High, attempts to rehabilitate stalin, crackdown of any dissent
c.1972-1985, Unraveling (with many signs of a High), Era of Stagnation
1985-1991, Awakening, Gorbachev's reforms, glasnost
1991-1993, Crisis, break-up of USSR, October coup
1993-1999, Unraveling, very nasty period of economic hardship with lots of drugs, disco, rave, sex, and prostitution
1999-2004, Crisis, rise of Putin
2004-?, High (with lots of signs of an Unraveling)

I wrote a similar post on US.

I don't mean to defy or deny the S&H theory by any means.
I had just offered a creative alternative opinion and I just want to know what you all think.

Here's what I think:

PTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT!!!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Not to mention East Vancouver, WA. One more reason to make English the official language of the United States Of America.

But then you would be infringing on their right to speak Russian everywhere. I am sure some Russian explorer once camped in East Vancouver -- it's ancient Russian land.

And if you make English the official language of the United States, what about those people who were here first?

Originally Posted by Uzi

But then you would be infringing on their right to speak Russian everywhere. I am sure some Russian explorer once camped in East Vancouver -- it's ancient Russian land.

Although, to be completely fair, you can hardly find a single Russian in the 'Couv. The ones there are almost exclusively Ukrainians and Moldovans (the accent gives them away, if the last name doesn't).

Anyway, it was funny being in Russia -- their language, like English, was the common tongue of a great, multi-country empire. So the expectation (just as clear there, if just as unspoken) was exactly the same as in the USA: if you want to be here, speak the civilized language; and don't expect anyone to bother with yours. It's been no surprise at all to see them as tourists be just as bad as Americans.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Although, to be completely fair, you can hardly find a single Russian in the 'Couv. The ones there are almost exclusively Ukrainians and Moldovans (the accent gives them away, if the last name doesn't).

Anyway, it was funny being in Russia -- their language, like English, was the common tongue of a great, multi-country empire. So the expectation (just as clear there, if just as unspoken) was exactly the same as in the USA: if you want to be here, speak the civilized language; and don't expect anyone to bother with yours. It's been no surprise at all to see them as tourists be just as bad as Americans.

I was once on a plane from Tallinn with a Russian woman who spoke no other language. Later, I saw her in Schiphol airport walking up to random strangers and asking them questions in Russian. One, an American, kept telling her ("Listen lady, I want to help you, but I have no idea what you are saying.") Of course, she didn't understand that, because she only spoke Russian. The last time I saw her, though, she had found some fellow travelers who spoke Russian and English (and Bulgarian, according to their passports).

If you want a good laugh, here's Tõnis Mägi, an Estonian musician, singing a song in Russian. I'm told the Soviets loved his accent. He lives down the street from me.

Here's some Estonian Russians speaking Estonian. The reporter is asking random people on the street if they know the national anthem. The Estonian Russian guy at 2.28 is the best. He does the whole thing with a great accent.

Guys, it's me again. I know that I should not really be posting here, but here is one last post before I make my final leave. This post is going to be very irrelevant to other discussions going on in this forum. But I think it's just somewhat interesting.

Overall, S&H theory is all about classifying and grouping people into their types. So, I have devised a very quick and dirty way to group people in today's Russia. Even in our days, almost 100 years after the Russian Revolution, Russians are very opinionated about the Revolution, the Civil War, ad everything that came after until WWII. Even today, the Russian Revolution is a topic of great controversy in Russia. It is still a topic of political and ideological debate and fuss in the news on TV. I will even state that the Russian Revolution is still a current event in Russia despite the fact that it happened in 1917, because it still inspires so much argument and polarization among modern Russians.

So, you have to come up to any Russian-speaking person and ask him the question, rank the following from best to worst: tsar Nicholas II, Vladimir Ilich Lenin, and Joseph stalin. And you will get 6 different kinds of answers. So, you will get 6 types of Russian people with 6 different ways of thinking. In my opinion, all 3 men were tyrants, dictators, butchers, and bloody murderers. So, I think that there cannot be a best man among these 3. But there can be the most evil, the lesser evil, and the least evil.

Rank these 3 men form best to worst: tsar, Lenin, stalin:

First type: from best to worst: stalin, Lenin, tsar

You are a tough and resolute Communist and stalinist. You are a pragmatic to extreme. You love order and hard work. You live an impeccable and a highly moral way of life, without any pleasure. You have very puritanical views. Your vision of the world is George Orwell's 1984.

Second type: from best to worst: Lenin, stalin, tsar

You are a firm Communist believer. You are progressive to extreme. For you, Communism is associated with building a bright, ideal world. You work very hard to achieve your visions and lead an ascetic way of life. You hate reaction and anything that is outdated and obsolete. You dislike tradition (other than the Communist one, of course).

Third type: from best to worst: Lenin, tsar, stalin

You are a believer in progress, preferably one that comes in a liberal and a nonviolent way. You believe in a bright future for all mankind. You believe in Communism "with a human face" and in peace on Earth. You are an internationalist, and you hate nationalism, and xenophobia. You lead a moral lifestyle, but you don't judge people who are hedonistic.

Fourth type: from best to worst: tsar, Lenin, stalin

You are a core liberal. You hate when any kind of order is imposed. You are very unpatriotic and you love protest. You are very opinionated and you express your opinions rather bluntly. You like pleasure and some decadence, because they give you independence.

Fifth type: from best to worst: tsar, stalin, Lenin

You are a radical anti-Socialist. Your ideal is a free-market and unbound capitalism, one that allows unlimited freedom and unlimited money-making. You supported perestroika and privatization, because they would give you more freedom and more ways to make money. You are cynical about building any grand social projects and dislike collective action.

Sixth type: from best to worst: stalin, tsar, Lenin

You are very proud of the Russian nation and the Russian people. You might be xenophobic. You want Russia to return to the days of its glory and to be the dominant world power over others. You would want the Russian imperialism, preferrably the stalinist style. you may lead a hedonistic way of live, yet you judge and critisize others for their immorality.

To give a more accurate picture, you would also need to add hitler, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin into the rankings as well. But this is the quickest method to classify Russian people.

I would have to say, that there are Russians of all generations in each of the six categories. There are Russian Millennials who belong to the first type and there are Russian peers of GI generation who belong to the fourth or fifth type (although that's a rarity). Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of people who belong to the sixth type. stalin and tsar are both very popular today, as they both represented nationalist ideas and imperialism. Never in my lifetime was stalin so popular in Russia as he is now.

Events of 1917 and 1937 are still very controversial today. They are still topics of debates. While American Boomers debate about gay marriage, abortion, guns, prayers in schools, unforms in schools, war on terror, their Russian peers are debating about how Nicholas II, Lenin, and stalin should be remembered.

That's all I wanted to say.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

Events of 1917 and 1937 are still very controversial today. They are still topics of debates. While American Boomers debate about gay marriage, abortion, guns, prayers in schools, unforms in schools, war on terror, their Russian peers are debating about how Nicholas II, Lenin, and stalin should be remembered.

Funny you would say that. I presume you get your information primarily from the TeeVee or other tertiary source.

Assuming discourse hasn't changed that greatly there in the month since I've been gone, I can fairly confidently say that no one is talking about how to remember the three guys you list off. At least, not as if it mattered (quite unlike, that is, the current sounding-off of the American prophet gen).
Sure, people have opinions on the three guys -- having opinions is part of being a person, after all -- but it's not like anyone considers that at all vital to life or society. The closest you could get to any kind of tangential relevance is the recent push (by the government, more than by any real sectors of Russian society, btw) to reinforce the National Myth as regards the fight against the Nazis. Since Stalin was in charge then, he gets to ride on the coattails... but that's about it, except for the fringe groups.

And again, unlike 4T American society, in 1T Russian society, the fringe groups are just that -- fringe. Irrelevant.

It is kind of odd, that Communism has been totally forgotten and Russian nationalism superimposed on Communist myths, like the Great Patriotic War, which was originally a war to defend the Communist homeland. I mean, we're talking about the Red Army, not the Russian Army. They didn't raise the Russian flag in Berlin in 1945, they raised the flag of the Soviet Union.

The current Russian flag is Peter the Great's banner -- and, oddly enough, the same tricolor was used on Russian SS uniforms. It's the flag of an Orthodox, nationalist, tsarist Russia. How to reconcile the Great Victory of the Communists with their murder of the tsar and his family? The good guys were also bad? The bad guys were also good? They were all good and bad?

Putin's Russia is some kind of postmodern mix of all the good parts, forgetting mostly the bad, unless prodded by the West. The relationship with the West as some kind of hypocritical nuisance, though, is purely Soviet. I am not sure how the tsars viewed the West, but there's little difference between current Russian state media interpretation of the West, and Soviet propaganda. It's just those damn war-loving opportunistic Anglo-American imperialists, you know. Only Russia and its higher culture can stand up to it.

Justin, there is a discussion specifically for you. I would like to hear your opinion on this.

S&H define the American WWII Generation as the GI generation, in other words, the generation of soldiers. That generation is known to their readers and to the rest of America as the generation of war heroes. This is why S&H theory is so believable, and this is why the Hero archetype for WWII generation is so believable. Any reader will say that WWII generation are Heroes primarily because they fought in the war and not because they were foot soldiers in FDR's New Deal programs and not because they replaced an old civic order with the new one. Indeed, their participation in FDR's New Deal programs helped contribute to their title of being Heroes, but it was not the main reason why that generation is rightfully called Heroes. I might even argue that there was no real change of a political order during the New Deal, as there were no revolutions or changes in the Constitution under FDR, and US remained a capitalist democracy since 1865. However, the interaction between the political infrastructure and economic infrastructure was greatly changed under FDR, and that might contribute to a change in the civic order. I was thinking that US became industrialized during the last 4T, because then, that would definitely mean that there was a change of old order and replacement with the new one.

In Russia, the generation of war heroes was the same one as in US. Justin, you would agree with me that if you ask any Russian on the street which generation is the most heroic one, they will say that it's the generation that won WWII. If you ask any Russian what generation deserves the title of the Hero, anyone will say that it's the Soviet WWII generation. According to your interpretation of the theory, the last Russian Hero generation was the one born in 1960s and 1970s. That generation fought in the Afghan War in 1980s and in the Chechnya Wars in 1990s. I don't think that these two wars had any 4T component to them. Neither of these two wars were fought for the survival of the nation or for the survival of the mankind, unlike the Great Patriotic War. Neither of these two wars had accomplished any sweeping results. And most of all, neither of these two wars were total wars. Also, Russians born in 1960s and 1970s are definitely not considered to be a generation of war heroes or a generation of builders. Unfortunately, this generation came of age going to the discos, starting their won businesses and failing at that, trying to scrap as much wealth as they could during the privatization, trying to survive in the post-Soviet times. Justin, have you seen the film The Little Vera from late 1980s? She looks like a pure nomadic Xer to me, very similar to punks and hip hoppers from US. Little Vera was probably not representative of everyone in that generation, but Russians born in 1960s and 1970s had endured a very individualistic youth and most of them had no real heroic experiences at that time. Have you seen the film The Brother (1997)? The main hero of that film is a soldier and a veteran, but he is too similar to Travis Bickle from the Taxi Driver to be called a Hero. Also, I think that if Russia was in a 4T mood in 1991, then Gorbachev would not have sat so calmly and watched the USSR disintegrate. If Russia would have been in a 4T in 1991, then, as former Soviet Republics were seceding, Russia would have sent millions of troops to fight a total war to prevent the secession. Russia would have plunged into a late 20th century equivalent of the US Civil War!

I think that there are several ways to interpret the S&H theory. One way would be to ignore wars and depressions, and to follow only the progression of how a political order is born, grows, matures, decays, and dies. With wars aside, Justin's view that Russia is 1 turning ahead of US is definitely correct. If you think of a Crisis only as a time period when an old order dies and a new order is born, then, indeed, Russia experienced a Crisis is the early 20th century and again in the late 20th century. Then, the Awakening would be the time period after WWII with stalin aging, dying, and with Khruschev taking over.
However, in US, it seems like the a change of order and a major war always take place in the same time frame. In US, an old order dies and an new order is born and in the same turning, there is always a major war going on. There were the Depression and the New Deal in 1930s and WWII in the early 1940s, there was the Southern secession, Proclamation of Emancipation, and Reconstruction in 1960-1877 and Civil War in early 1860s, and there was the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in 1776 and 1789 and Revolutionary War in late 1770s. So, in US, a major war and a change of order seem to always go together. So, in US, the young generation of soldiers happens to be the generation of people who build the new order. In US, the generation of war veterans is also a generation that creates a new political order. But I think that they get their name of Heroes firstly because they fought in the major war. At least this is true of the American WWII generation.
In Russia, I observe that change of order and a major war are decoupled. Recent changes of order in Russia were around 1773 (when Emilyann Pugachev rebelled against tsarina Catherine the Great), in 1861 (when serfs were freed), in 1917 (the Russian Revolution), and in 1991 (collapse of USSR). Major wars for Russia, total wars that determined the destiny of the country, did not take place at the same time as the changes of order. Major wars were in 1812-1815 (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), and 1941-1945 (the Great Patriotic War). In late 19th century, there seemed to be no large war in Russia, unless you count the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. So, for US, major war and change of order are together, but for Russia, they are separate. What if Russia has completely different generational archetypes as a result of that? What if Russia does not have the Hero-Artist-Prophet-Nomad progression? What if Russia has some very different generational stereotypes? Maybe the Villain archetype (opposite of Hero)? Or the Short-Sighted archetype (opposite of Prothet)?

ChemBar,

Nice post. I'm afraid I'm going to run the risk of disappointing you with the brevity of my response.

Ultimately, what you are talking about gets summed up quite well in your latter paragraph:

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

I think that there are several ways to interpret the S&H theory. One way [as opposed to the war-based way] would be to ignore wars and depressions, and to follow only the progression of how a political order is born, grows, matures, decays, and dies.

In fact, that particular aspect of the Turnings Theory really needs no interpretation. Strauss and Howe came right out and said it (reiterated it fairly regularly, too) -- Turnings is not a wars cycle. It is not a political cycle.

It is a social cycle.

That is, wars, governmental upheavals, economic good times and bad... none of those is the Cycle. The Cycle is how people react to the events that occur. Gen names such as 'Revolutionary' and 'GI' are as fundamentally meaningless as is 'X' -- that is, they are identifiers... no more.

As far as the Russian cycle goes, I began to see the first glimmerings of it seven or eight years ago, when I started visiting and travelling Russia. It simply did not feel anything at all like the Unravelling-era society that I remembered from my earlier days. Families were tight, children were valued, and the sense of optimism one encountered was of the nature 'we're going to get places' -- in stark contrast to the 'I'm going to make it big' that I was so used to. Of all the Turnings, that most resembled a 1st.

Of course, given the whole World-War-II point, these observations of the Russian social environment tended to make me simply doubt the applicability of Turnings Theory to non-Anglo societies. It wasn't until I started socializing and really getting to know people who and their stories that I came to realize that the map was there, just in a different synch. What cinched it was the repeated assertion that, during pretty much Stalin's entire rule, not only did politics not change, but neither did the social structure. And that, as Stalin's era was ending, the stagnation of the culture was repeatedly challenged. Even moreso, that those in authority-roles in society indulged the young challengers. Growing up in a society already super-stable, rebelling against the stagnation, and getting a lot of what you want -- that maps pretty damn well on the Prophet-gen. One need merely recognize that WWII was an external event that occurred during Russia's 1T (and also, of course, that the fact that S&H called a 1T a "High" doesn't automatically mean it will be happy-happy-funtime). The fact that Russian society on both ends of it looks the same makes that, frankly, easy to do.

Once I got that part assimilated, the Russian cycle pattern emerged pretty clearly.

What's particularly cool to me is this: Their neighbors go into the whacked-out phase almost right once Russian society is breathing a sight of relief at getting over theirs and being able to settle down and get to making the world right. This is repeated over and over through their history (and right now... I can tell you, the US-based world financial collapse was a firm kick in the nuts to Russian society that was just getting started enjoying the fruits of its successful resolution of the End-of-Communism 4T). One might even muse -- I have, and do -- that the regular failure to enjoy a happy 1T (socially-stable, yes; but that doesn't mean necessarily happy) is a contributor to the Russian character traits of fatalism and self-deprecation. Were that to be the case, it would suggest that the Generational Cycle is not merely a feature which emerges in some societies, but perhaps even a necessary component to civilization.
Maybe not, but it's a neato idea, anyway...

----

-aside-

You mentioned the movie (I think) Брат. That movie shows a classic 4T -- just one a bit more developed than the US is in now. Think back to the Great Depression -- Danila grows into a classic Depression-era vigilante (vigilantism being something that really takes off in the early parts of a 4T when society is in its final breakdown).

Justin is right in that Russia is unlikely to undergo major institutional changes in the near future. No matter what happens in the next decade or so, it is unlikely Russia will take any other form than a federative model based on the majority nationality - the Russians, unless you are predicting the total end of Russia as we know it.

But Russia does have a whole list of problems to tackle and it is unlikely that its current leadership can deal with them as they are products of the same system. How can oligarchs enforce major anti-corruption reforms? At the same time, a lot of Russia's money is absorbed each year by its growing bureaucracy. What happens when the cash runs out?

The relationship between Moscow and the regions is prone to instability, not just in the North Caucases but in places like Vladivostok. There are majority-minority problems, to say the least.

And to make matters the absolute worst, the Soviet leftovers in the Kremlin are engaged in a neverending dick-waving contest with Washington over the "post-Soviet space," where they claimed a "privileged interest" because, well, just because. I've read several reports that the Kremlin hawks have some 19th century-like plan to subdivide and annex parts of Ukraine. Good luck, guys.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Justin is right in that Russia is unlikely to undergo major institutional changes in the near future. No matter what happens in the next decade or so, it is unlikely Russia will take any other form than a federative model based on the majority nationality - the Russians, unless you are predicting the total end of Russia as we know it.

But Russia does have a whole list of problems to tackle and it is unlikely that its current leadership can deal with them as they are products of the same system. How can oligarchs enforce major anti-corruption reforms? At the same time, a lot of Russia's money is absorbed each year by its growing bureaucracy. What happens when the cash runs out?

That's to say nothing of the fairly homogeneous culture Russian kids are being brought up in these days. I've met (my boys went to school with) the next Russian Prophet gen. Those kids are going to shake things up in 10-odd years in some really interesting ways. It's a sure bet the Oligarchs and other Establishment sundry in Russia have no idea what's coming to them. (And good riddance)

Assuming the USA doesn't committed some sort of glorious comma-self mass-atrocity before them (never a sure bet, in any county's 4T), I hope to get a chance to swing through regularly to experience the Russian Awakening. It'll be a welcome break from the stifling American 1T to come.

Justin, you wrote you would like to come to Russia during its 2T to refresh yourself from the American 1T.
However, were there many Americans during the 1950s, the years of McCarthyism, who left the United States to travel to the Soviet Union during the last years of stalin and during the Khruschev Thaw? Would many dissident, freedom-loving Americans have wanted to go to the USSR to get away from McCarthyism in 1950s? And if they were allowed to leave, would they really be "refreshed" in USSR of the late stalin era and early Thaw?
I am just curious. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

However, were there many Americans during the 1950s, the years of McCarthyism, who left the United States to travel to the Soviet Union during the last years of stalin and during the Khruschev Thaw? Would many dissident, freedom-loving Americans have wanted to go to the USSR to get away from McCarthyism in 1950s? And if they were allowed to leave, would they really be "refreshed" in USSR of the late stalin era and early Thaw?
I am just curious. What do you think?

See, now, history doesn't repeat. And Communism in Russia died a full Turning ago. The previous 1T in the Russian cycle was amazingly bleak; the 2T was a major breath of fresh air, relatively speaking, but it was so bad then that even 'better' still wasn't very good (to an outside observer). This time around, the Russian 1T has the kind of go-go optimism and widespread social progress that [allegedly] characterized the post-Revolution and 20th century American 1Ts. So it stands to reason that the 2T will represent an improvement over that level. Not a fall back to 'better than life under Stalin'.

Whereas the course so far of the American 4T leaves one with increasingly less optimism for the shape of the stability that the coming 1T will bring here. The questions of 'happy' and 'sad' really aren't addressed by Generational Theory, though. So one can only really get to those by looking within a certain cycle; cross-cycle analogizing on that level is a profound misreading of what the authors observed and were talking about.

Justin and others,
What are the archetypes of the following?
1. tsar (1868)
2. Lenin (1870)
3. stalin (1879)
4. Trotsky (1880)
5. Khruschev (1894)
6. Marshall Zhukov (1896)
7. Lavrentij Beria (1899)
8. Malenkov (1902)
9. Brejnev (1906)
10. Andropov (1914)
11. Gorbachev (1931)
12. Yeltsin (1931)
13. Gagarin (1934)
14. Vysotsky (1938)
15. Putin (1952)
16. Medvedev (1965)

Who is a Hero, who is an Artist, who is a Prophet, who is a Nomad?

Who the hell do you mean by 'tsar'? There were several dozen of them...

As for the rest, the way it works out for the ones you could clearly call:

Prophets: Lenin

Nomads: Stalin, Khrushchev, Zhukov, Putin

Civics: Brezhnev, Andropov

Artists: Gorbachev, Yeltsin

The rest would be cuspers of some sort...

Bear in mind, since the USSR fairly quickly became ruled by a geriatric clique, the gens of their premiers don't necessarily correspond too well to whenn they were in power.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bear in mind, since the USSR fairly quickly became ruled by a geriatric clique, the gens of their premiers don't necessarily correspond too well to whenn they were in power.

U.S. Presidents haven't necessarily corresponded well either. The theory only requires that most people leaving power during a Crisis are Prophets. There are a whole lot more people than just the head-of-state trying to steer a country.