This is completely true, from everything I’ve seen and heard. What I probably should have said (noted this below as well in reply to ComradeSalad) is that Russia plays, on the world stage, an imperfectly progressive role.
Old Russians are communistic and dead , middle aged Russians are chauvinists and anti commies and younger generations are pro west completely and despise everything about USSR.
I’ve heard this varies by region? I.e., in big cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg there is a huge liberal contingent, and a lot of anti-Soviet feeling. But in the “hinterlands” you find, among all ages, a much more positive view of the USSR, and more people will describe themselves as “communist” in their politics (whether or not they have a very clear idea of what that means). I haven’t been to Russia, so I’m going entirely off hearsay, but it’s a huge country with a lot of room for local variation.
I will say Putin as a whole is responsible for bringing back Russia from death.
This I would push back against a little, as being somewhat un-materialist. One should not deny the important role Putin has played. But history is not made by individuals, and Putin has been able to achieve what he has because he has the backing of an important strata of Russian society: the security services and the mid-level bureaucrats who see to much of the day-to-day running of the country. Though not communist in any real ideological sense, these people have tended to have a deep-set patriotism, and they emerged from the 1990s very angry, and rightfully so, at the west what it had done to Russia. Putin, I think, came to power with the support of this class – i.e., he is what Marx would have called a “bonapartist,” a leader who represents one faction of the ruling class seizing power to suppress another faction. I believe Zyuganov described him in exactly these terms soon after he was elected.
I don’t want to pin down “bonapart” terms onto Putin and such. Putin is not Napoleon. To the 3rd world he is just a casual non westerner in front of an onslaught by colonial countries. I mean he is no different from Nehru, nasser (except the debatable socialistic part). Nehru, Nasser were called socialist as namesake and were very much anti colonial and pro Palestine. That’s how I see Putin. He is standing against the ongoing colonialism of the world and he has successfully prevented it by this SMO. Materialist or not, I believe a leader’s role and philosophy is crucial for a society and his country. When Nehru was alive, our people looked onto his image and personality. He was deadly against organized religion , superstitions and was biased in pro USSR camp. He industrialized the country whereas Modi , when we look forward onto his ideology and legacy it’s all BS and fascistic. I believe Stalin had an enormous role in USSR which was slandered and squandered by the later leaders which eventually broke up the USSR. Stalin also had said, a role of a revolutionary leader and his positions is very important to marxism. We in the 3rd world lack leaders like Putin (he has courage and will to do the right thing ).
I gotta push back against this. I understand this is just your perspective, and it explains some things, and I’m not attacking you whatsoever. And Putin did genuinely do some good things, but to say that he has an exorbitant amount of courage is to oversell, in my opinion. He has enough to stand against the U.S., but he is still a conservative tool and a reich-wing reactionary coward.
**but he is still a conservative tool and a reich-wing reactionary coward.
**
A leader who is anti LGBT is normal in the 3rd world. Not many countries in the world is pro LGBT. You might be living in a country which was swept by sexual liberation movement of 1960s. That thing was solely European and atlanticists and was sponsored by CIA. It might have some positive effects on society but if you observe the world carefully , except the western European and Cuba, most fall into patriarchal category due to capitalism and imperialism. You cannot bring pro LGBT values into the east without dismantling the US empire which have used this as a tool against Russia and E. Europe and also against China.
Regarding Putin, he is quite exceptional. If he were a coward he could have immigrated to IS for a more luxurious , calm life. Instead he chose to stay in Russia and rectify it and started saying about multipolar world in early 2000. As a person from the 3rd world, I have to give this man the due credit. That’s when China invited Putin in BRI. He was at the front with Xi. All commie countries have good relations with Russia. Yes, it’s not socially progressive and it will take time for Russia to adjust itself.
This is completely true, from everything I’ve seen and heard. What I probably should have said (noted this below as well in reply to ComradeSalad) is that Russia plays, on the world stage, an imperfectly progressive role.
I’ve heard this varies by region? I.e., in big cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg there is a huge liberal contingent, and a lot of anti-Soviet feeling. But in the “hinterlands” you find, among all ages, a much more positive view of the USSR, and more people will describe themselves as “communist” in their politics (whether or not they have a very clear idea of what that means). I haven’t been to Russia, so I’m going entirely off hearsay, but it’s a huge country with a lot of room for local variation.
This I would push back against a little, as being somewhat un-materialist. One should not deny the important role Putin has played. But history is not made by individuals, and Putin has been able to achieve what he has because he has the backing of an important strata of Russian society: the security services and the mid-level bureaucrats who see to much of the day-to-day running of the country. Though not communist in any real ideological sense, these people have tended to have a deep-set patriotism, and they emerged from the 1990s very angry, and rightfully so, at the west what it had done to Russia. Putin, I think, came to power with the support of this class – i.e., he is what Marx would have called a “bonapartist,” a leader who represents one faction of the ruling class seizing power to suppress another faction. I believe Zyuganov described him in exactly these terms soon after he was elected.
I don’t want to pin down “bonapart” terms onto Putin and such. Putin is not Napoleon. To the 3rd world he is just a casual non westerner in front of an onslaught by colonial countries. I mean he is no different from Nehru, nasser (except the debatable socialistic part). Nehru, Nasser were called socialist as namesake and were very much anti colonial and pro Palestine. That’s how I see Putin. He is standing against the ongoing colonialism of the world and he has successfully prevented it by this SMO. Materialist or not, I believe a leader’s role and philosophy is crucial for a society and his country. When Nehru was alive, our people looked onto his image and personality. He was deadly against organized religion , superstitions and was biased in pro USSR camp. He industrialized the country whereas Modi , when we look forward onto his ideology and legacy it’s all BS and fascistic. I believe Stalin had an enormous role in USSR which was slandered and squandered by the later leaders which eventually broke up the USSR. Stalin also had said, a role of a revolutionary leader and his positions is very important to marxism. We in the 3rd world lack leaders like Putin (he has courage and will to do the right thing ).
I gotta push back against this. I understand this is just your perspective, and it explains some things, and I’m not attacking you whatsoever. And Putin did genuinely do some good things, but to say that he has an exorbitant amount of courage is to oversell, in my opinion. He has enough to stand against the U.S., but he is still a conservative tool and a reich-wing reactionary coward.
**but he is still a conservative tool and a reich-wing reactionary coward. ** A leader who is anti LGBT is normal in the 3rd world. Not many countries in the world is pro LGBT. You might be living in a country which was swept by sexual liberation movement of 1960s. That thing was solely European and atlanticists and was sponsored by CIA. It might have some positive effects on society but if you observe the world carefully , except the western European and Cuba, most fall into patriarchal category due to capitalism and imperialism. You cannot bring pro LGBT values into the east without dismantling the US empire which have used this as a tool against Russia and E. Europe and also against China.
Regarding Putin, he is quite exceptional. If he were a coward he could have immigrated to IS for a more luxurious , calm life. Instead he chose to stay in Russia and rectify it and started saying about multipolar world in early 2000. As a person from the 3rd world, I have to give this man the due credit. That’s when China invited Putin in BRI. He was at the front with Xi. All commie countries have good relations with Russia. Yes, it’s not socially progressive and it will take time for Russia to adjust itself.