Quote Originally Posted by RedFox View Post
Еще несколько дополнений:

А как, вы полагаете, осваивалась территория Сибири? Точно такими же инициативными людьми.

Это звучит так, будто за окном всё еще 60-е и гонка вооружений.
Я сравниваю то, что можно сравнить в историческом контексте. Меня интересует природа различных политических и социальных процессов, а не «количество чугуна на душу населения», ну или в чем там измеряла успехи советская власть, не помню.

Я вам так отвечу:
Когда элита культурнее народа — это называется монархия. Это игра на повышение. Народ растёт вслед за элитой. Создаются университеты, школы, больницы, люди учатся уважать друг друга, жить по закону, а не по праву сильного.
Когда «элита» — тупые уголовники (в прямом смысле; основные лица ВКПб — бывшие уголовники: грабители и террористы), проводящие раскулачивания и расстрелы, то это называется тирания.
«Уровень свободы» при этом не имеет никакого значения. Если у вас есть то, что нужно бандиту из НКВД, это завтра будет у него, а вы будете расстреляны как враг народа.

А я такого и не говорил. Средние слои населения имеют приемлимый уровень образования.
Однако, «элита» страны такого образования, как, например, элита Франции или Германии — не имеет. А в РИ — имела.
I don't strongly disagree with anything you say, but I think you'd find me more to the left of yourself on an old fashioned right - left scale, that's probably why I am more inclined to see the good in the USSR and be harsher in my judgment of imperial Russia which was practically feudal in some respects.
I think a country should be judged on how it treats the majority, not on how the top part of society lives. Your views seem to be more in line with what Americans call "neo-con".

You should also consider, where would YOU be in the hierarchy if not for the revolution? Unless your ancestors were part of the prosperous bourgeoise before the revolution, odds are that your family benefited from a lot of what the USSR offered.

And even if your ancestors were part of the small clique at the top; would you have enjoyed your priveliges while other countrymen were starving and freezing?

Imperial Russia was hardly a democracy either as I understand with those who dared challenge the powers being sent into exile or even executed. How long would that have continued if the revolution didn't happen?

And when Germany invaded, 1941, could the tsar with Imperial Russia have pulled off what Stalin did with the USSR? Things could have ended very differently.

I am aware as you say, that there was a very cultured elite in St Petersburg, Moscow and elsewhere in the Russian empire, and that St Petersburg and Moscow were modern and forward.
I know there were excellent educational institutions in St Petersburg at the time, and that the Russian elite travelled widely in Europe and got new impressions and brought ideas home, and that there were impressive building project as well as the exploration of Siberia during this time.

But while that happened, there were simultaneously people who barely had shoes on their feet in the winter, couldn't read or write, suffered malnourishment but still believed that the tsar was divine. Very backwards, you can't deny that.

Obviously Russia lost much of it elites in the revolution, and put a lid on capitalist style development projects. Communism has some very unattractive sides to it, the way it deals with religion being one of them.
And socialist planning conducted by flawed humans isn't a dynamic, flexible or flawless way of running an economy. I am not disputing that capitalism is more efficient at least for short term profits.
Without the revolution who knows? Maybe Russia would be like Brazil today, some really rich people and some really poor. Or maybe more like the USA - but I believe the melting pot / immigration / new lands situation was quite unique.

As for the level of education of leaders in modern day Russia; Who are you comparing with? Americans?
Are American leaders so much better educated and smarter? How come they always start these insane wars that end in total failure and doesn't achieve what they believe. Sergei Lavrov has really impressed me as incredibly sharp and a bit of a rennaissance person. I don't think Putin is some caveman either, even though my view of him is not quite as positive as of Lavrov. Which leaders is it that you admire and that seem to be so much more refined than Russia's? Merkel? Hollande? Xi Jinping? Surely not Obama?! I have more respect for Putin in that case.

Or did you mean the state of higher education in general?
If so, I can understand you are concerned, I read about bribes and corruption at universities. I knew that there have been times in the past when scientific/tecnical degrees from the USSR were highly rated; back in the 1960s-70s.

Putin should prioritize higher education and invest in excellent universities and vocational educations - anything else would be stupid. If talented people have to go abroad to get a really good education, then Russia is at a disadvantage. I am sure the Russian leadership is aware of that. Partly it's up to people who work in education and at universities to stop accepting bribes and raise the bar.
I don't know how common this is, but I read about it several times.