Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Thoughts from the Russian Federation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Hi guys, 

I'm a British guy who lives in Russia and I thought I'd share some thoughts on what is happening here and in Europe. 

From a generational perspective over here in Russia, I would say this country is in the midst of a 2T. Right now there is at least four generational divides and I think it beats anything even Strauss and Howe could come up with. 

To start with we have the 50+ crowd which is nostalgic for the USSR and actually regret it's demise. Very nice people and true believers in the internationale, that is everyone on the earth is a comrade. They were taught mainly friendship of the nations and stick to it.

Then you have the 35+ crowd who remember the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 1998 financial crisis. They seem to be sympathetic to Putinism and would prefer a stronger Russia. Good people but they do feel that America is being threatening to Russia and don't like it. 

Then you have the 20+ crowd and they are the group that is the most anti putin. They have a very naive view of the West, thinking it to be a great paradise and that Russia must become like the West in order to succeed. However most of them are still more socially Conservative then Western millennials and would prefer not to have open borders or gay marriage. They don't like Putinism though and feel it alienates Russia. 

Then you have the children and they are the next patriotic generation, to put it mildly. They believe that Russia is going to be a great country and feel very patriotic to the motherland. 

So my own assessment about Russia is that the older generation who still like Communism have no say anymore and usually stick with the status quo or vote for the Commies. 

The 35ers tend to be more pragmatic. They support Putinism to an extent but would prefer to have better relations with the West. 

The 20s want a new Russia altogether. They remember as kids the hard 90s and want freedom, democracy, the usual. That said not all of them do and some of them think the west is a crazy basket case. I do know that when Angela Merkel let in all those refugees, the Russian youth thought she had gone mad. So I wouldn't say its a left wing Liberal movement but more a weird sort of centrism. 

The kids are I think a future right wing generation who will embrace some form of putinism although not be hostile to the West. Just a sort of our country is great now let's do business. 

Anyway overall the attitudes of Russians is friendly to Europe, dislike of America (for obvious reasons) and that is in general about it. Whatever happens though, I think that Putin has left a very big mark on this nation and the future of Russian politics will have some basis for the decisions he has made. If I was to compare him to someone, I'd say St. Olga of Kiev. She laid down the foundations of orthodox christianity in a Russia but it was her grandson that fully converted the nation, not her son. Putin is sort of like that. He's planted the seeds of this Russian revival and whilst the young generation want changes, the desire I think for Russia to be a great power will remain. If they continue on some form of Putinism but on a more friendlier scale, they could potentially become the next super power at the end of the century, after China. No one believes it but I see the seeds are there.
Welcome. Interesting thoughts. Not being Russian, I don't have the close knowledge that you do. It seems apparent though that Putinism is draining the nation, and if it goes in his direction it will decline rather than be great again. Just like Trump's similar nationalism will not make America great again but consign it to rapid decline.

Eventually, old time religion and old time rationalism are alike on borrowed time. Young people want to be free everywhere, and I don't see that ever changing from now on. I predict there will be no new "patriotic generation" anywhere. Nation states and dogmatic religions alike are long out of date already. We are a global society and we will move toward openness (within practical limits), freedom and renewed non-dogmatic spirituality everywhere.

There is always a trend toward reaction around, as people revert to what is familiar, safe and comforting and requires no responsibility or curiosity. I just think the trend of evolution is toward human development, rather than perpetual periodic reactionary regression and stalemate.

What do you think? How am I wrong?

Just my boomer 2 cents. Welcome to the discussion.
Hi Eric, 

You express interesting thoughts and I can see where you are coming from. However, I do not wish to sound abrupt but the idea of one global state I feel has passed. It was a popular mode of thinking in the 1990s but the world has retracted since then. I have met a few Russians who share the utopian vision of thus but for the most part I think it is just wishful thinking.

Ultimately it was a western desire born out of world war 2. The west decided never again and desired the global vision of unity. Problem is the rest of the world hasn't caught up to this level of thinking. Hence the problems with jingoism, radicalism, etc, etc. 

Basically my thoughts are the world is going to be another 19th century with Russia, China and India and others getting rich and the west being the sick man this time around. It'll be a long century like the 19th but when these countries have finally achieved what the west has, they will fight amongst themselves. I'm looking at a 22nd century age of conflict like the 20th was to the 19th.

We could have had a global century but America kinda screed it up with the Bush admin and its never been right since. 

As for Putinism you are correct in one essence. It is draining the nation. But on the other hand the idea of Russia being a unique country with a special destiny I think will live on. Its not Europe its Russia and it is a different mindset altogether.
(11-09-2019, 07:54 PM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Eric, 

You express interesting thoughts and I can see where you are coming from. However, I do not wish to sound abrupt but the idea of one global state I feel has passed. It was a popular mode of thinking in the 1990s but the world has retracted since then. I have met a few Russians who share the utopian vision of thus but for the most part I think it is just wishful thinking.

Ultimately it was a western desire born out of world war 2. The west decided never again and desired the global vision of unity. Problem is the rest of the world hasn't caught up to this level of thinking. Hence the problems with jingoism, radicalism, etc, etc. 

Basically my thoughts are the world is going to be another 19th century with Russia, China and India and others getting rich and the west being the sick man this time around. It'll be a long century like the 19th but when these countries have finally achieved what the west has, they will fight amongst themselves. I'm looking at a 22nd century age of conflict like the 20th was to the 19th.

We could have had a global century but America kinda screed it up with the Bush admin and its never been right since. 

As for Putinism you are correct in one essence. It is draining the nation. But on the other hand the idea of Russia being a unique country with a special destiny I think will live on. Its not Europe its Russia and it is a different mindset altogether.

"Hasn't caught up"; that may be true, and I do agree. People do often revert to the familiar and old fashioned; they like the comfort of authority and tradition. But progress in the long run means that eventually people will catch up. I don't see that it is anything but inevitable. Nations lived and grew within a horizon, but that has been broken by commerce, technology, global crises and wars. Races are co-mingling in ever-greater numbers. Young people want freedom and prosperity, not national pride. Right now the Arab Spring spirit is rising again in the lands that Bush shattered with his wars; young people are rising up there again now for freedom and prosperity, not for Islamism and terrorism. More and more they care about life, not about abstractions like nations and religious sectarianism. The old framework of warring nations and colonies was shattered and can't be rebuilt. The 19th century was the last in a different era of civilization from our own. The 1890s/1900s and the world wars were an epochal shift that can't be shifted back. 200-year cycles don't exist, but 500-year cycles do.

The W. Bush admin was a fluke, provided by a supreme court decision that circumvented the will of the people. His wars are seen a deviation, not a new normal. The early 1990s was a trend-setting time; the early 21st century is a deadly holding action, holding back a dam that will break within just a very few years now. The 2020s will be the return of progress; bank on it Smile

I am not saying that a global state will be erected in our lifetimes, and if it ever is it will just be a UN with more power. There will be local governing entities and nations. But that does not matter. The global society has been a fact now for 120 years and its reality is ever-greater. The League of Nations established in 1919 was the beginning of a new civilization. Barriers and walls are breaking down and we are realizing that humanity is one people on one threatened Earth-- threatened by our own behavior and by the small ruling class. It will be saved, and that requires global cooperation. The terrible Trumpists are trying to stop this cooperation, but one retrograde nation-- retrograde because of the votes of 77,744 people in 3 US states-- can't hold back progress for long.
You post interesting thoughts and I can see your pattern of thinking. It is what is known as the linear theory of history and actually originates from Judeo-Christian thinking. That is all the events of history lead up to an eventuality of world peace and prosperity through progress.

I actually do not see history in this way but more of a cyclical repeat albeit with different flavourings. People inherently never learn from the past and same mistakes are always repeated. 

I think we are entering not a global stage but more a civilizational stage of history. The big powers are forming a civilisational mark and we do see this return to the great game that is now being played out in Africa and the ME between the powers. Chinese youth seem content with the Communist Party (aside from Hong Kong) and so do other nations.

As for the 2020s, I have done alot of esoteric research into the matter and it always points to the same result. Collapse of the West and the rise of the BRICS. America is basically the British Empire in decline and Europe its vassal states. It is an unfortunate turn of affairs but I do see the West reviving itself on green agricultural based economic methods so there is some hope. Its just that the time now belongs to the East and not the West. With their more protectionist way of thinking, we are indeed entering a new long century.

That said global cooperation is a possibility but. The other nations have to go through the European Experience to get there, if you know what I mean.
(11-09-2019, 08:41 PM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]You post interesting thoughts and I can see your pattern of thinking. It is what is known as the linear theory of history and actually originates from Judeo-Christian thinking. That is all the events of history lead up to an eventuality of world peace and prosperity through progress.

I actually do not see history in this way but more of a cyclical repeat albeit with different flavourings. People inherently never learn from the past and same mistakes are always repeated. 

I certainly agree that history is cyclical and mistakes are repeated. But I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice (a paraphrase of Theodore Parker's statement). I do see progress in history, overall. In one sense, one era is not better than another; the medieval worldview was better than modernism in many ways, for example. Cathedrals are better than bank skyscrapers, too. But all in all, I think the modern world offers more and longer life for more people, and a wider perspective of knowledge.

Quote:I think we are entering not a global stage but more a civilizational stage of history. The big powers are forming a civilisational mark and we do see this return to the great game that is now being played out in Africa and the ME between the powers. Chinese youth seem content with the Communist Party (aside from Hong Kong) and so do other nations.

As for the 2020s, I have done alot of esoteric research into the matter and it always points to the same result. Collapse of the West and the rise of the BRICS. America is basically the British Empire in decline and Europe its vassal states. It is an unfortunate turn of affairs but I do see the West reviving itself on green agricultural based economic methods so there is some hope. Its just that the time now belongs to the East and not the West. With their more protectionist way of thinking, we are indeed entering a new long century.

I am more optimistic, based on my own esoteric research into the matter Smile . Tyranny has made a comeback in recent years, but that is just the cyclic ebb and flow. Long term, the people everywhere want freedom and a good life, including in China. People living under tyranny can only do so much, but eventually the movement toward freedom succeeds. People in Asia and Africa want the same things that Americans and Europeans want. China now being under a stultifying tyranny will slow down in its advance toward world leadership. It might happen that China becomes #1, and it seems likely now, but by the mid-2030s we will see China enter a new period of revolution, and human rights will advance there.

It won't matter then, if the USA and Europe are #2 and #3 or lower, then. The same forces and same human desires will operate, regardless of which nation has the highest GNP. The principles of The West are now the principles of the East and the whole world since the collapse of imperialism. And by the same token, the principles of the East have also been absorbed by The West since the sixties.

Just for fun, a paraphrase of my favorite song: "And the parting on the East, is now a parting on the West, and no longer is one nation now the best!"

There will be no "collapse of The West" in the coming years, because "The West" already collapsed in the world wars. That was the defining moment of our new era of civilization. There is now no such thing as The West.

Meanwhile, the USA and the Western nations and many others have been under the dominance of neo-liberalism for 40 years, and that has caused the USA, Britain and other nations to decline and stagnate. The 2020s will see the collapse of neo-liberalism in the USA and Europe/Britain. That will bring about a revival of the fortunes of the USA and its people. It will have to go through a 4T first, but it looks like it will come back with the people winning, and boom times will return. And I do also see a green revival in the 2040s.
(11-09-2019, 06:17 PM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]To start with we have the 50+ crowd which is nostalgic for the USSR and actually regret it's demise. Very nice people and true believers in the internationale, that is everyone on the earth is a comrade. They were taught mainly friendship of the nations and stick to it.

What happened to the people in that age range that were excited about "glasnost" and "perestroika" and the fall of the Soviet Union?  Or when they think of the Soviet Union, are they thinking of Gorbachev's Soviet Union, rather than Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Brezhnev's?


Quote:Anyway overall the attitudes of Russians is friendly to Europe, dislike of America (for obvious reasons) and that is in general about it.

The reasons aren't obvious to me; could you clarify the reasons for dislike of America?

Also, I take it you think the collapse of the Soviet Union was the end of a crisis that reset the generational cycle, basically erasing WWII as the previous crisis?  That sounds consistent with your assessment of the generations, but I thought the 1990s were so different from the next decade for Russia that 1990-2010 as the "high" doesn't seem perfectly coherent.
(11-10-2019, 12:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2019, 06:17 PM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]To start with we have the 50+ crowd which is nostalgic for the USSR and actually regret it's demise. Very nice people and true believers in the internationale, that is everyone on the earth is a comrade. They were taught mainly friendship of the nations and stick to it.

What happened to the people in that age range that were excited about "glasnost" and "perestroika" and the fall of the Soviet Union?  Or when they think of the Soviet Union, are they thinking of Gorbachev's Soviet Union, rather than Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Brezhnev's?


Quote:Anyway overall the attitudes of Russians is friendly to Europe, dislike of America (for obvious reasons) and that is in general about it.

The reasons aren't obvious to me; could you clarify the reasons for dislike of America?

Also, I take it you think the collapse of the Soviet Union was the end of a crisis that reset the generational cycle, basically erasing WWII as the previous crisis?  That sounds consistent with your assessment of the generations, but I thought the 1990s were so different from the next decade for Russia that 1990-2010 as the "high" doesn't seem perfectly coherent.

Good questions.

I doubt Isoko thinks the generational cycle could only last 40 years or so.
(11-10-2019, 12:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2019, 06:17 PM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]To start with we have the 50+ crowd which is nostalgic for the USSR and actually regret it's demise. Very nice people and true believers in the internationale, that is everyone on the earth is a comrade. They were taught mainly friendship of the nations and stick to it.

What happened to the people in that age range that were excited about "glasnost" and "perestroika" and the fall of the Soviet Union?  Or when they think of the Soviet Union, are they thinking of Gorbachev's Soviet Union, rather than Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Brezhnev's?


Quote:Anyway overall the attitudes of Russians is friendly to Europe, dislike of America (for obvious reasons) and that is in general about it.

The reasons aren't obvious to me; could you clarify the reasons for dislike of America?

Also, I take it you think the collapse of the Soviet Union was the end of a crisis that reset the generational cycle, basically erasing WWII as the previous crisis?  That sounds consistent with your assessment of the generations, but I thought the 1990s were so different from the next decade for Russia that 1990-2010 as the "high" doesn't seem perfectly coherent.

Well to begin with Warren, the generation that fondly remembers the Soviet Union primarily focus on the Khruschev and Brezhnev era where there was more of a opening up of the Soviet Union and the country had essentially rebuilt itself. Apart from the lack of consumer goods like jeans etc, the vast majority had access to food, good healthcare and quality education, from what I have been told. To them, there was a real progress in their lives and they seemed content with the system.

Gorbachev on the other hand is very hated by the vast majority of Russians as they see that he essentially opened up forces that led to the destruction of the Ussr. In reality though it was the soviet elites who destroyed it as they fancied western capitalism over soviet communism where as the rank and file were happy to see it continued, albeit with improvements.

One interesting aspect is that when the collapse of Communism occurred, it was the Russians who were devastated by it. The rest of the former Warsaw Pact was happy to see it go. Belarus under Lukashenko though sort of kept it going with a new form of socialism which is highly praised by Russians. I know the older generation love Belarus as it takes them back to the USSR. Vast majority of Belarusian too seem content with the system.

I'd say that glasnost and perestroika is more evident in the 20+ crowd although compared to say American millies, this generation is mainly focused on economics and not bothered with social movements. Legalising gay marriage or marijuana is not on the agenda and they simply want basically more money put into the economic sphere then military. This does seem to be a repeating cycle in Russia where it is economics that is put on first priority then social policies and I will explain that in a later post on my thoughts regarding this.

The dislike of America is mainly due to politics and great power posturing. Most seem America as infringing on their sovereignty with the military bases and Nato border exercises. For others it is the traditional cold War rivalry. Some even blame America for the collapse of the Soviet Union. So its a mixed bag. They don't hate the individual American but the American government is heavily viewed with distrust.

In regards to generational theory, I'd say there was no awakening generation. To compare Western generational theories to Russia is very difficult due to the history of the land. Russia has been in three crises in the last 30 years for example. So if I am to have a very good educated guess, I would say WW2 was a 4T with Khruschevan communism being one big silent generation. The youth today are a 2T generation with the 30+ crowd brings other 4T due to the collapse of Communism. Kids of Russia I think could either be a silent, lost or crisis generation, I cannot be fully sure yet.

Eric, have a nice long post coming for you as I have alot of ideas I think you might find interesting but I'm work right now so I'll get back to you tonight.
OK Eric, now that I am back, I thought I would reply to your post as I find it quite interesting. From my own research Eric, it does align with your own findings in some areas. I agree with you about the 2020s crisis. This will be the ending of the current neoliberal authority that rules in the West and I do see revolutions happening in countries like Iran other places. In the case of Russia and China, there won't be a revolution but more a case of a changing of the old guard scenario. 

But this is the two fundamental differences that we are going to see between West and East. The West is going to more than likely economically collapse or at the very least go into a major depression which will force these countries to develop a new economy aka green revolution in 2040. I do foresee this happening with agricultural being a booming business, creating new small businesses and in general reviving the west's fortunes. Mass immigration to Europe though will stop and most migrants will go home and rebuild their own countries with Europe adopting more stricter border controls. So the fears of Eurabia are unfounded. 

The east on the other hand is going to go through something akin to the 1848 Liberal revolutions Europe had. They want more representation in government and in general more money flowing to them. However unlike the West that is concerned about the environment, the east isn't heavily that concerned. They want the good quality of life the West has had and if it means industrialisation they are going to do it. 

My belief is from my own research that global cooperation is possible and I believe you are correct it is going to happen. But right now we still have a region of the world that isn't prepared to make sacrifices and want what we had. My predictions therefore point to the east going down the consumer capitalist Road. It'll be peaceful but like the 19th century that eventually reached the peak of development and grew bored, I foresee the east going along the same lines. Same old is boring, resources are growing scarce. This itself will be their version of the next 4T. I'm looking at the years of this about 2080 to 2150.

What you are predicting is everyone wants the same and we are all the same. Fundamentally it is true but I don't think that we will ever truly become the same and each distinct civilisation has its own road of how to get there. The end result will be global peace and cooperation but its going to still be a bumpy road. 

There is an interesting article based on Spengler written by a guy called John Michael Greer. Perhaps you have heard of him? He follows more the cyclical theory of history but he has some things interesting to say about America and Russia birthing the next two great cultures. He called them Tantamous and Sobornost respectively. Its quite an interesting read on how the future could shape up to be. 

My own thoughts tend to be in the middle of you and Greer although. As for the end of the West, you are correct. It was the end of Europe as a dominat power and instead the gears of history shifted towards America and Russia. So you are correct, the West in that essence is dead and what we have been living with is more an American based system that was competing with the Soviet Union for the heart and soul of Europe.
(11-10-2019, 08:48 AM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]Well to begin with Warren, the generation that fondly remembers the Soviet Union primarily focus on the Khruschev and Brezhnev era where there was more of a opening up of the Soviet Union and the country had essentially rebuilt itself. Apart from the lack of consumer goods like jeans etc, the vast majority had access to food, good healthcare and quality education, from what I have been told. To them, there was a real progress in their lives and they seemed content with the system.

Gorbachev on the other hand is very hated by the vast majority of Russians as they see that he essentially opened up forces that led to the destruction of the Ussr. In reality though it was the soviet elites who destroyed it as they fancied western capitalism over soviet communism where as the rank and file were happy to see it continued, albeit with improvements.

Thanks - interesting!  This view seems rather divorced from reality, but I have to remember that these people were rather young at the time and it's not as if the Soviet Union had a free press.

In reality, the centrally planned Soviet economy resulted in major food shortfalls starting by 1972, a decade before Brezhnev left power.  Russians would have starved if the US hadn't sold them millions of tonnes of wheat per year for the next two decades.  The inflationary effects on food prices in the West were highly publicized, but the Soviet press might have kept things quiet.

This is in fact what caused the Soviet elites to consider free market capitalism:  the ready availability of all sorts of food in the US, as opposed to the Soviet Union where meat was kept under lock and key.  Introduction of some elements of a free market have been a great success in this respect; in place of being the dependent on massive food imports to avoid starvation, Russia is now the world's biggest exporter of wheat.

It's sad if a substantial fraction of the Russian population don't realize this.  That said, if the younger people are happy with going in the direction of a liberal economy, as the rest of your posts seem to say, they should be okay as the older people die off.


Quote:The dislike of America is mainly due to politics and great power posturing. Most seem America as infringing on their sovereignty with the military bases and Nato border exercises. For others it is the traditional cold War rivalry. Some even blame America for the collapse of the Soviet Union. So its a mixed bag. They don't hate the individual American but the American government is heavily viewed with distrust. 

Blaming America for the collapse of the Soviet Union is certainly legitimate; that was the primary foreign policy goal of the US for half a century.  In the 1980s, we found the winning strategy of spending enough on the military that the Soviet Union had to choose between feeding its people and keeping up militarily, and it chose to feed its people and collapse.  Frankly, I'm proud to have contributed to that.

What's unfortunate is that the US didn't take advantage of the opportunity to develop friendly relationships and a strong, mutually beneficial trade ties - and to a lesser extent, that we didn't take the opportunity to grossly reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.  Sadly, too many American still see Russia through Cold War eyes - and it sounds like that's a mutual feeling.
(11-10-2019, 02:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt Isoko thinks the generational cycle could only last 40 years or so.

What I'm seeing is:

50+ - Civics who came of age before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  I suppose you could say they were on the losing side, with the other Soviet and Warsaw Pact states on the winning side.  Putin is in this generation

35-50 - Adaptives.

20-35 - Idealists.  Anti-Putin, which seems likely to be a generational rift.

"Children" - Reactives.  I would agree that this doesn't fit well; his description would better fit Civics.  But how would the 50+ be Idealists?  The dethroning of Stalin would be too far back to be an awakening on this timeline.
(11-10-2019, 01:42 PM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]OK Eric, now that I am back, I thought I would reply to your post as I find it quite interesting. From my own research Eric, it does align with your own findings in some areas. I agree with you about the 2020s crisis. This will be the ending of the current neoliberal authority that rules in the West and I do see revolutions happening in countries like Iran other places. In the case of Russia and China, there won't be a revolution but more a case of a changing of the old guard scenario. 

But this is the two fundamental differences that we are going to see between West and East. The West is going to more than likely economically collapse or at the very least go into a major depression which will force these countries to develop a new economy aka green revolution in 2040. I do foresee this happening with agricultural being a booming business, creating new small businesses and in general reviving the west's fortunes. Mass immigration to Europe though will stop and most migrants will go home and rebuild their own countries with Europe adopting more stricter border controls. So the fears of Eurabia are unfounded. 

The east on the other hand is going to go through something akin to the 1848 Liberal revolutions Europe had. They want more representation in government and in general more money flowing to them. However unlike the West that is concerned about the environment, the east isn't heavily that concerned. They want the good quality of life the West has had and if it means industrialisation they are going to do it. 

My belief is from my own research that global cooperation is possible and I believe you are correct it is going to happen. But right now we still have a region of the world that isn't prepared to make sacrifices and want what we had. My predictions therefore point to the east going down the consumer capitalist Road. It'll be peaceful but like the 19th century that eventually reached the peak of development and grew bored, I foresee the east going along the same lines. Same old is boring, resources are growing scarce. This itself will be their version of the next 4T. I'm looking at the years of this about 2080 to 2150.

What you are predicting is everyone wants the same and we are all the same. Fundamentally it is true but I don't think that we will ever truly become the same and each distinct civilisation has its own road of how to get there. The end result will be global peace and cooperation but its going to still be a bumpy road. 

There is an interesting article based on Spengler written by a guy called John Michael Greer. Perhaps you have heard of him? He follows more the cyclical theory of history but he has some things interesting to say about America and Russia birthing the next two great cultures. He called them Tantamous and Sobornost respectively. Its quite an interesting read on how the future could shape up to be. 

My own thoughts tend to be in the middle of you and Greer although. As for the end of the West, you are correct. It was the end of Europe as a dominant power and instead the gears of history shifted towards America and Russia. So you are correct, the West in that essence is dead and what we have been living with is more an American based system that was competing with the Soviet Union for the heart and soul of Europe.

Good ideas. Makes more sense to me. I have one caveat though, in that the climate and environmental crisis is requiring all societies east, west, south and north to improve their economies in a faster kind of evolution. It won't be possible for them to do this in the way 19th century western societies did. And they have already agreed to this, and have started to implement it. Politically though, of course, they have a ways to go to catch up to the "west." I expect more freedom movements to continue breaking out, as they are as we speak.

Unfortunately, since we in the USA have a monumentally-regressive regime chosen by 77,744 voters in 3 states according to an electoral system designed to appease slave-holders 230 years ago, the United States of America has resigned temporarily its leadership in the green vision and its willingness to negotiate the proper balance to which it agreed in 2015 with the other nations seeking more economic development. Mussolini-reincarnate's excuse is that it handcuffs his desire to regress the USA to 19th century goals of wanton industrial growth, national power and rampant oligarchy.
Hi Isoko, welcome to the forum.

You have some interesting thoughts here - I also think that Russia's cycle doesn't match the western one. Despite the fact that they also fought in WW2 like us.

Be careful with Eric, he's hopelessly into esoteric stuff. Mumbo-jumbo.
(11-10-2019, 06:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2019, 02:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt Isoko thinks the generational cycle could only last 40 years or so.

What I'm seeing is:

50+ - Civics who came of age before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  I suppose you could say they were on the losing side, with the other Soviet and Warsaw Pact states on the winning side.  Putin is in this generation

35-50 - Adaptives.

20-35 - Idealists.  Anti-Putin, which seems likely to be a generational rift.

"Children" - Reactives.  I would agree that this doesn't fit well; his description would better fit Civics.  But how would the 50+ be Idealists?  The dethroning of Stalin would be too far back to be an awakening on this timeline.

Warren, 

The problem with trying to assign a generational fit to Russia is that it is nigh on impossible. The reason for this is the amount of crisises this country gets compared to say Western countries. Like one guy said to me, he is 38 and has lived through 3 crisises. Collapse of the communism, hard 90s and 1998 banking crisis then the Ukraine debacle. We he see a fourth crisis? So in actual reality, Russia is like a country that has a regular 4T every generation, not just every four generations. 

Overall though you have a good picture of what the generations is for Russia but do take into account the constant 4T element. As for the children, I have done some esoteric research and Russians next crisis is going to be the 2040-2050 period, when the kids start to get into power. I forsee them having a great 2020s-2030s but 2040s is what I forsee the birth of the next Putin. I. E the strong leader. 

And I hate to contradict Eric but Russians, whilst they want democracy, still want a strong leader. Putin is just another tradition I'm this way of governance. Its always about the strong king and it goes back to Rurik. They get strong Kings, country prospers. Weak Kings and the country collapses. You can see the pattern here. So Western style democracy won't work here. There will be democracy but it'll still be centred around the great leader mindset.

Tbh when it comes to Russia, 2T generations are an extreme rarity. In fact I would even argue that there is no silent generation but one big generation of civics. The generation born in 1920-1940, 1940-1960 and 1960-1980 all fit the same civic pattern. So literally three civic generations rolled into one.

So technically we could say 1920 - 1980 is civic, 1970-1985 sort of has a nomad feel but is still civicish, 1990-2000 is prophet and 2010 onwards is again civic. Hard for you guys to wrap your heads around but that seems to be the general pattern here.

And the only reason the 2T is happening is because of Putin. Since he stabilised the system, it allowed more leisure time and globalisation to creep in. But once again it all really does revolve around this strong leader concept.
(11-11-2019, 06:11 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Isoko, welcome to the forum.

You have some interesting thoughts here - I also think that Russia's cycle doesn't match the western one. Despite the fact that they also fought in WW2 like us.

Be careful with Eric, he's hopelessly into esoteric stuff. Mumbo-jumbo.

And you are hopelessly not, I guess Smile
(11-10-2019, 12:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2019, 06:17 PM)Isoko Wrote: [ -> ]To start with we have the 50+ crowd which is nostalgic for the USSR and actually regret it's demise. Very nice people and true believers in the internationale, that is everyone on the earth is a comrade. They were taught mainly friendship of the nations and stick to it.

What happened to the people in that age range that were excited about "glasnost" and "perestroika" and the fall of the Soviet Union?  Or when they think of the Soviet Union, are they thinking of Gorbachev's Soviet Union, rather than Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Brezhnev's?


Quote:Anyway overall the attitudes of Russians is friendly to Europe, dislike of America (for obvious reasons) and that is in general about it.

The reasons aren't obvious to me; could you clarify the reasons for dislike of America?

Also, I take it you think the collapse of the Soviet Union was the end of a crisis that reset the generational cycle, basically erasing WWII as the previous crisis?  That sounds consistent with your assessment of the generations, but I thought the 1990s were so different from the next decade for Russia that 1990-2010 as the "high" doesn't seem perfectly coherent.

The establishment American Politicians have largely used Russia as a lightning rod for domestic problems...or were you living in a cave for the last few years?

Having been to Russia several times, staying there for extended periods and yes, knowing old people there...my experience is they are not fond of Gorbachev and more so earlier eras of Soviet history.  Stalin is very much a national hero to this day--though he's a Georgian and not a Russian.

As I've said previously WW2 WAS NOT A RUSSIAN 4T . Rather that the 4T ended some time around 1922-ish after the Reds had secured the revolution and that the Great Patriotic War took place during a 2T for Russians. 

Russia is a completely separate civilization from the West, and is also on a completely separate time line.

@Isoko

Welcome to the forum.  I hope your enjoy your stay here.  Also Eric is an idiot, who has the scientific understanding of a medieval peasant.  Just wait until he tells you that matter does not exist.
(11-12-2019, 11:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As I've said previously WW2 WAS NOT A RUSSIAN 4T . Rather that the 4T ended some time around 1922-ish after the Reds had secured the revolution and that the Great Patriotic War took place during a 2T for Russians. 

I would certainly agree that the Russian Revolution was a crisis resolution.  It has been a century since then, though; there should have been another crisis since then.
(11-13-2019, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2019, 11:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As I've said previously WW2 WAS NOT A RUSSIAN 4T . Rather that the 4T ended some time around 1922-ish after the Reds had secured the revolution and that the Great Patriotic War took place during a 2T for Russians. 

I would certainly agree that the Russian Revolution was a crisis resolution.  It has been a century since then, though; there should have been another crisis since then.

I don't know what could be a greater crisis for Russia than having half of your population wiped out. WWII was a crisis event. The Russian Revolution was part of an awakening period that featured many creative artists who flourished under the initial Soviet regime under Lenin.
(11-13-2019, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2019, 11:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As I've said previously WW2 WAS NOT A RUSSIAN 4T . Rather that the 4T ended some time around 1922-ish after the Reds had secured the revolution and that the Great Patriotic War took place during a 2T for Russians. 

I would certainly agree that the Russian Revolution was a crisis resolution.  It has been a century since then, though; there should have been another crisis since then.

There was.  The last 4T lasted from about 1987 to 2000 ish...could be argued that the 4T started with Brezhnev's death in 1982.  The early Oughts and Teens of this century were clearly 1T in feeling.  And I have ventured away from Moskva and Petersburg.

I think that the problem Isoko is having is that he is expecting Idealist generations in Russia to behave the same way they do in the West.  Really my experience has been that Russia is a civilization unto itself and operates on its own social and cultural norms.
Pages: 1 2 3 4