Comments on: Lessons from Byzantium

By: AK

AK — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:34:42 +0000

I don’t think it is possible for Russia to finally stop being an Empire, until all other Empires vanish from the face of the Earth.

Not a matter of wishing for it or not… just a reality we have to live with, IMO.

By: AK

AK — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:33:24 +0000

Unlike in British apartments, which had individual central heatings per room, across Russian apartments it is centralized – that is correct. Actual control is in the hands of the municipal authorities, however, not strictly the state. The system is highly inefficient because of the greater heat loss and it becomes a real nightmare when half or 75% of the people abandon the apartment, as has happened in some cities in the Far North and the Far East. This is, however, as you correctly point out, an example of how much more “structurally centralized” (for lack of a better term) the Russian economy has been locked in to be by its legacy of centrally planning – and why this means its optimal state is far more centralized & interventionist than in the West.

I do not think Stolypin could have prevented the Revolution. Russia was suffering from deeper problems in 1914 that made it a fragile complex system, that would descend into chaos given big perturbations like a prolonged war.

By: John McNeill

John McNeill — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:45:20 +0000

I really hope Russia does not pursue any future imperialism. No empire in history has ever survived; the and people who founded the empire are often corrupted by all the power, wealth, and prestige. Rome and Greece are perfect examples. And right now I’m witnessing the death of my country, America, and the death of Europe as well, and an imperial past of many of these countries played huge role in current affairs.

As a Russophilic American I hope Russians learn from the mistakes of Americans and Europeans, and heed Alexander Nevsky’s advice in the Soviet film about him, where he says “Better to die in your own land than leave it.”

By: Gregor

Gregor — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:24:02 +0000

True, Lessons of Byzantium was not ‘good history’ but it was better history than many takes on Russia: especially what I think of as the Muzhik Theory (though there is probably a more elegant term) which is that the Russians are inherently brutal and fawning over their leaders who (as I saw one Russian historian put it ironically) ‘have an unbroken line from Ivan Vasilievitch to Joseph Visarionovitch’. Or the idea that America’s values which were formed in a very unique country could be transplanted into a very different nation like Russia. A Russian friend was telling me that the state heats the buildings in Moscow’s very cold winter… something that would probably have Hayekians feeling faint.

Incidentally, any thoughts on the rehabilitation of Stolypin, which seems to have been ignored by the MSM? His case is one reason why I dislike grand historical theories. If it hadn’t been for an insane young man with a gun, then someone with intelligence might have been in a position of power during WWI. Whether Stolypin could have saved Tsarism or helped form a viable Provisional Government, I don’t know, but a chance assassination may have changed the course of Russian history.

Personally, I am rather sceptical about using the word ‘Tsar’ too generally. Perhaps sadly for us medievalists, Russians are not as reactionary as the neo-liberals like to portray them but I do think that monarchist theocracy is actually a viable political position in its own right. That isn’t to say it is one that I would support or that I think should exist independently of democracy, but not one that should be said to exist where it doesn’t.