Thoughts from the Russian Federation

[Hintergrund]

(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.

Makes absolute sense. It's probably no coincidence the Soviet Union broke down during it. (Something we should consider too - the Anglo-Yankee world has been lucky enough to survive every Crisis pretty well. Ask some Southerner, or study their history from 1865-1940 to learn how an English-speaking society that lost in a Crisis looks like.)

The breakdown happened around Gorbachev's time, but he is misblamed. Every other Soviet leader since Stalin included probably would have failed as well.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Could some Russian generations be hybrids in terms of archetype?

[Teejay]

Hello Isoko,

It is great to hear from somebody who is living in the Russian Federation. Anyway, some of us on the old Fourth Turning forum, have argued that Russia (along with likely the Ukraine and Belarus) is on the different saeculum than Western Europe is, one which is matched up with Central Asia, Turkey, Iran and the Caucuses states. All these countries had Crisis's approximately both from 1900-1920 and middle to late 1970s to the middle to late 1990s.

It was determined on the evidence from Russian history, popular culture and on the ground observer Justin 77' who lived in Russia for some time, that Russia has recently entered an Awakening, with the High just passed starting c.2000. To me it makes so much sense, so I have recently converted to the club.

The estimated generational lineup would be following; with those born in the 1940's and 1950's being Nomads, those born in the 1960s and 1970s being Heroes/Civics, those born in the 1980s and 1990s being Artists and those born in the 2000s and 2010's being Prophets.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-14-2019, 12:02 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Could some Russian generations be hybrids in terms of archetype?

Perhaps. The 2T and 3T were suppressed by the Soviet regime. In the 1980s Russia was still a model GI society. Then the 1990s were a 4T, the perestroika was a restructuring of institution typical of a crisis and the Chechen wars were crisis wars.

[Eric the Green]

It could be argued that Russia and its satellites and former subject republics have never entered the modern world. They have always been suppressed. This may be an exaggeration, since in spite of everything Russians have contributed to civilization. But most people there have always been poor and oppressed, and they have no sense of what it means to have any say in their affairs. They bow down to the leader by force of habit and indoctrination. So, do they really undergo a saeculum at all?

The saeculum is a whirlpool and a wheel of progress. The fact that it is a cycle means that it pushes us forward. Contrary to popular opinion and according to obvious fact, only wheels allow forward motion. Linear progress is impossible. It would be trying to push along a car that has no wheels. In a society that never progresses, then, how can there be a saeculum?

[Bill the Piper]

(11-18-2019, 03:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It could be argued that Russia and its satellites and former subject republics have never entered the modern world. They have always been suppressed. This may be an exaggeration, since in spite of everything Russians have contributed to civilization. But most people there have always been poor and oppressed, and they have no sense of what it means to have any say in their affairs. They bow down to the leader by force of habit and indoctrination. So, do they really undergo a saeculum at all?

The saeculum is a whirlpool and a wheel of progress. The fact that it is a cycle means that it pushes us forward. Contrary to popular opinion and according to obvious fact, only wheels allow forward motion. Linear progress is impossible. It would be trying to push along a car that has no wheels. In a society that never progresses, then, how can there be a saeculum?

How do you define progress?

If Russia was never modern, what about the successes of Russian space program?

[Hintergrund]

"Their Germans were better than our Germans". ;-)

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2019, 07:53 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 03:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It could be argued that Russia and its satellites and former subject republics have never entered the modern world. They have always been suppressed. This may be an exaggeration, since in spite of everything Russians have contributed to civilization. But most people there have always been poor and oppressed, and they have no sense of what it means to have any say in their affairs. They bow down to the leader by force of habit and indoctrination. So, do they really undergo a saeculum at all?

The saeculum is a whirlpool and a wheel of progress. The fact that it is a cycle means that it pushes us forward. Contrary to popular opinion and according to obvious fact, only wheels allow forward motion. Linear progress is impossible. It would be trying to push along a car that has no wheels. In a society that never progresses, then, how can there be a saeculum?

How do you define progress?

If Russia was never modern, what about the successes of Russian space program?

Does technology figure in the description and nature of generations? The Russian/Soviet minority of tech wizards were able to engage in a nationalistic project to glorify their dear leader, but that's not much different than the pharoahs, emperors and kings who were able to direct their people in the construction of great monuments down through the centuries, mostly done to glorify the dominant ruler or religious authority. These minority of artists and architects etc. must have been inspired, and they accomplished feats as miraculous and hard to duplicate as is our own space program today (and also more-inspired), but they managed this within the context of authoritarian societies which never had any social or political progress and no generation gaps.

But, of course, our own society, in the USA and in many western and eastern nations, is now regressing back toward this same condition. So unless progress restarts soon (which I am predicting that it will), our own saeculum could also come to a grinding halt, space program or no space program.

Russia has difficulty in manifesting awakenings and unravelings, which are individualist-motivated turnings, because of the tight restrictions on their people. But their leaders manage to cause crises on a regular basis. So this might be a two-stroke cycle; that's another possibility. Maybe they just have 4th and 1st turnings, each probably twice as long as ours, or even longer. I think you implied this in your other post above.

[Teejay]

(11-18-2019, 03:20 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-14-2019, 12:02 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Could some Russian generations be hybrids in terms of archetype?

Perhaps. The 2T and 3T were suppressed by the Soviet regime. In the 1980s Russia was still a model GI society. Then the 1990s were a 4T, the perestroika was a restructuring of institution typical of a crisis and the Chechen wars were crisis wars.

I was reading recently through posts by Justin 77' who lived in Russia for a number of years, Justin 77' said that Russia's turnings and generations were actually clearer than those in the West.

Roughly the turnings in Russian history goes as the following; Crisis c.1900-c.1922, High c.1922-c.1940, Awakening c.1940-c.1960, Unraveling c.1960-1980, Crisis c.1980-c.2000, High c.2000-c.2018?

That would make the Bolshevik Revolution, Russian Civil war and the Fall of the Soviet Union, Crisis events for Russia, along with probably the Ukraine and Belarus. Also Central Asia, the Caucuses states, Iran, Turkey and Mongolia are on the same saeculum as Russia. However other areas which were in both Russian empire and Soviet Union, such as the Baltic States, are on the same saeculum as the rest of Europe, which Justin 79' (who has lived in Estonia for a number of years) remarked on.

[AspieMillennial]

(11-18-2019, 09:12 PM)Teejay Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 03:20 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-14-2019, 12:02 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Could some Russian generations be hybrids in terms of archetype?

Perhaps. The 2T and 3T were suppressed by the Soviet regime. In the 1980s Russia was still a model GI society. Then the 1990s were a 4T, the perestroika was a restructuring of institution typical of a crisis and the Chechen wars were crisis wars.

I was reading recently through posts by Justin 77' who lived in Russia for a number of years, Justin 77' said that Russia's turnings and generations were actually clearer than those in the West.

Roughly the turnings in Russian history goes as the following; Crisis c.1900-c.1922, High c.1922-c.1940, Awakening c.1940-c.1960, Unraveling c.1960-1980, Crisis c.1980-c.2000, High c.2000-c.2018?

That would make the Bolshevik Revolution, Russian Civil war and the Fall of the Soviet Union, Crisis events for Russia, along with probably the Ukraine and Belarus. Also Central Asia, the Caucuses states, Iran, Turkey and Mongolia are on the same saeculum as Russia. However other areas which were in both Russian empire and Soviet Union, such as the Baltic States, are on the same saeculum as the rest of Europe, which Justin 79' (who has lived in Estonia for a number of years) remarked on.

Wouldn't a turning begin in Russia in 1991, the fall of the Soviet Union?

[Teejay]

(11-18-2019, 09:32 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Wouldn't a turning begin in Russia in 1991, the fall of the Soviet Union?

Justin 77' on the old forum argued why Russia's last 4T did not end until 2000. Because unlike the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, where the transition was largely peaceful and smooth. The period after the fall of the Soviet Union until 2000 (with the end of the battle stage of the Second Chechen Civil War), for much of the rest of the former Soviet Union, was a lot of political upheaval in Russia and much of the rest of the Soviet Union after it fell in 1991. There are also wars such as First Chechen War, Nagorno-Karabakh War and Tajikistani Civil War.  Indeed, the mood throughout Russia, which was very dark during the 1990s, started to get brighter after about 2000.

However, in countries in Eastern Europe which were part of the Communist bloc, the Fall of Communism was a very different experience. For countries expect for Yugoslavia, the fall of Communism was quite peaceful and rapid, apart from violence for a short period in Romania. Also, the experience for these countries, was a euphoric one. Not surprising 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ‘Second Summer of Love’ was the end of the Awakening for the European Continent and Britain.

The former Yugoslavia was different since Tito’s (who was a Nomad) sheer force of personality, keep together the different countries of Yugoslavia for a long time. Also, his rule kept the lid on ethnic tensions, which exploded into wars after the fall of former Yugoslavia. The way to describe the wars in the former Yugoslavia, there were an Unraveling literally from hell, with armies led by fanatical Prophets and Nomads with 'flexible' morals. Indeed, there are a lot of parallels with the the Insurgency in Iraq after the Second Gulf War and the Syrian Civil War (both Unraveling events for the Arab World).

[Hintergrund]

It makes sense re: the Crises, but I still think it's odd that Stalin, his purges and the Holodomor constitute a High. And even if it's true, how is the first half of Stalin's rule a High, but the second one an Awakening? What happened?

Also, many Russians joke that their history can be concluded in one sentence: "Things got worse." Does their cycle only have two seasons (of different length), Crisis and everything else?

[Teejay]

(11-20-2019, 03:14 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: It makes sense re: the Crises, but I still think it's odd that Stalin, his purges and the Holodomor constitute a High. And even if it's true, how is the first half of Stalin's rule a High, but the second one an Awakening? What happened?

Also, many Russians joke that their history can be concluded in one sentence: "Things got worse." Does their cycle only have two seasons (of different length), Crisis and everything else?

Well China was in a High from 1949-1967, that featured both the Thousands Flowers Campaign and the Great Leap Forward. Also, Cambodia might have been in a High during the rule of Pol Pot.

Anyway the impression that I got from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, was that the Stalinist purges and the Gulags were a product of a spirit dead society, Solzhenistyn certainly criticized the immoral nature of the Gulag system. By the way Solzhenitsyn (1918) in my opinion seems have been a Artist/Prophet cusper, which sounds right if the Bolshevik Revolution Crisis ended in 1922.

[Kinser79]

(11-20-2019, 03:14 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: It makes sense re: the Crises, but I still think it's odd that Stalin, his purges and the Holodomor constitute a High. And even if it's true, how is the first half of Stalin's rule a High, but the second one an Awakening? What happened?

Also, many Russians joke that their history can be concluded in one sentence: "Things got worse." Does their cycle only have two seasons (of different length), Crisis and everything else?

It is a particularly American thought process that first turnings must be "high" and "euphoric".  Probably due to the poor name choice S&H chose and the rose colored glasses many wear about the 1950s.  1Ts need not be idyllic, what they do need to be though is a time where the consensus that arose out of the previous 4T is enforced--brutally if necessary.

[Hintergrund]

(11-20-2019, 03:45 AM)Teejay Wrote:

(11-20-2019, 03:14 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: It makes sense re: the Crises, but I still think it's odd that Stalin, his purges and the Holodomor constitute a High. And even if it's true, how is the first half of Stalin's rule a High, but the second one an Awakening? What happened?

Also, many Russians joke that their history can be concluded in one sentence: "Things got worse." Does their cycle only have two seasons (of different length), Crisis and everything else?

Well China was in a High from 1949-1967, that featured both the Thousands Flowers Campaign and the Great Leap Forward. Also, Cambodia might have been in a High during the rule of Pol Pot.

Some of the things you say make sense, but now I wonder whether you're still sane. You sound as idiotic as those lefty "intellecktuals" who defended mass murderers like him.

[Hintergrund]

(11-25-2019, 02:15 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-20-2019, 03:14 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: It makes sense re: the Crises, but I still think it's odd that Stalin, his purges and the Holodomor constitute a High. And even if it's true, how is the first half of Stalin's rule a High, but the second one an Awakening? What happened?

Also, many Russians joke that their history can be concluded in one sentence: "Things got worse." Does their cycle only have two seasons (of different length), Crisis and everything else?

It is a particularly American thought process that first turnings must be "high" and "euphoric".  Probably due to the poor name choice S&H chose and the rose colored glasses many wear about the 1950s.  1Ts need not be idyllic, what they do need to be though is a time where the consensus that arose out of the previous 4T is enforced--brutally if necessary.

This actually makes some sense. If it's true: Poor Russians.

[Teejay]

(11-26-2019, 08:57 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(11-20-2019, 03:45 AM)Teejay Wrote:

(11-20-2019, 03:14 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: It makes sense re: the Crises, but I still think it's odd that Stalin, his purges and the Holodomor constitute a High. And even if it's true, how is the first half of Stalin's rule a High, but the second one an Awakening? What happened?

Also, many Russians joke that their history can be concluded in one sentence: "Things got worse." Does their cycle only have two seasons (of different length), Crisis and everything else?

Well China was in a High from 1949-1967, that featured both the Thousands Flowers Campaign and the Great Leap Forward. Also, Cambodia might have been in a High during the rule of Pol Pot.

Some of the things you say make sense, but now I wonder whether you're still sane. You sound as idiotic as those lefty "intellecktuals" who defended mass murderers like him.

I certainly do not defend Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who were murderous tyrants.

However, I see patterns to all of these three tyrant’s behavior, in that they are Old Nomads who imposed mind numbing totalitarianism, during a High when as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn remarked of Stalinst Russia, when the people had forgotten god.

Nomads have a tendency to Imposing mind numbing authoritarianism, build police states, in response to a Crisis. There are plenty of examples of this phenomenon at work throughout history, from Queen Elizabeth I, James II of England, Louis XIV of France, Francisco Franco, António de Oliveira Salazar, Juan Perón, Vladimir Lenin, Josip Broz Tito, Vladmir Putin, Ali Khamenei, along possibly Suharto and Lee Kuan Yew. However Nomad leaders can be great for stabilizing their societies, along with getting things done and often are considered by historians as among the greatest leaders of a particular society.

[Warren Dew]

Do you consider the post WWII high in the US to have had a police state? Truman and Eisenhower were reactives, after all.

I wouldn't call the US of the period entirely a police state, but it was certainly less free than the US of the rest of the 20th century. Perhaps highs just generally tend toward authoritarianism.

[David Horn]

(11-27-2019, 02:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Do you consider the post WWII high in the US to have had a police state?  Truman and Eisenhower were reactives, after all.

I wouldn't call the US of the period entirely a police state, but it was certainly less free than the US of the rest of the 20th century.  Perhaps highs just generally tend toward authoritarianism.

I think that yes, the last 1T had some dark aspects that were clearly government related.  But unlike today, the 1T Congress was highly active, so whacknuts like Joe McCarthy in the Senate and HUAC in the House were the most draconian and overbearing.  I would credit both Truman and Ike with keeping both in check, though both were still able to destroy the lives of putatively innocent people.

[Isoko]

Hi guys,

Sorry for the late reply but you know how life can get in the way. Anyway back to the discussion points to be made, I think once again Eric hit a very good point when he said that Russia only has 1st and 4th turnings. I would say that has been my thinking also as there seems to be a crisis every generation. When one of my students remarked on living through three crisises in his life time, I think that symbolises something.

There is sort of a youth rebellion going on in Russia against Putin but its nothing like the US Awakening with the baby boomers. It's more to do with the youth are, how to say, looking for a new king and they think that just by adopting western democracy (which has stopped working effectively I'd like to add) they can magically make the country rich and life in Russia will just be like Friends on the TV. I'd argue in essence it is another huge naivete and reminds me of the generation that survived in the hard 90s.

They thought that once Communism ended, Yeltsin would bring in Democracy and everything would radically improve overnight. It didn't and instead led to Putin actually radically improving the country which people happily supported until one key thing: the pensions.

That is correct. People were actually content with Putin, half the country even supporting his annexation of the Crimea, until he decided to raise the pension age. That was it, overnight the country hated him. Had he left the pensions alone, he would be alot more popular right now and people content with his leadership.

If history is anything to go by, Putin will eventually retire, there will be a period of weak leaders, an attempt at democracy which ultimately fails and eventually the return of another Putin who once again raises living standards. It seems to be a repeat cycle here.

My own personal thesis on this is the environment. America has had it relatively easy and this allows different generations to develop and go with the ups and downs of the economic climate of life. Russia on the other hand has been on survival mode since she was founded and as a result no real, genuine new ideas have come from Russia. Its hard to get creative when everyone is attacking you or the climate freezes you to death. This itself has developed a nation of hardy conservatives which due to the decline of Europe could play to use in future relations.