Ukraine's European Revolution?

[alfred russel]

Honestly, how absurd is this argument going to get?  I can name a half dozen European nations that never produced the likes of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol or Bulgakov, the latter two of whom were "ethnic Ukrainians."

19th and early 20th century Russia was something of a backwater--only really relevant because of its size. The backwardness in Russia was something that educated Russians were acutely aware.

Citing some great writers doesn't change that. It is like citing Faulkner as evidence Mississippi wasn't a shithole in the 1950s.

[Queequeg]

You specifically said that this part of the world under-produced culturally.  Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are perfectly capable of economic and cultural productivity, but I don't think 700 years under vicious, incompetent exctractive institutions followed by 60 years of totalitarianism prepared them for flourishing in the modern economic climate without a substantial period of transition. 

[Queequeg]

Wouldn't people have been making the same argument about Asia in the 19th Century?  Climatically encumbered or culturally defective? 

[Jacob]

You specifically said that this part of the world under-produced culturally.  Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are perfectly capable of economic and cultural productivity, but I don't think 700 years under vicious, incompetent exctractive institutions followed by 60 years of totalitarianism prepared them for flourishing in the modern economic climate without a substantial period of transition.

Isn't that basically two ways of saying the same thing?

[Queequeg]

Not really?  Russia and Ukraine produced plenty culturally after the awful little blip of the Mongols and the ineffectual rule of the Poles and pre-Petrine Russia.  I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the core Russian climate before you get in to the more arid semi-steppe zone around Saratov and Kazan or the true stepppes. 

[alfred russel]

You specifically said that this part of the world under-produced culturally.  Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are perfectly capable of economic and cultural productivity, but I don't think 700 years under vicious, incompetent exctractive institutions followed by 60 years of totalitarianism prepared them for flourishing in the modern economic climate without a substantial period of transition.

If what was keeping Russia from being Western Europe was just comparatively bad government that happened to last 700 years, I doubt such governments could have endured in Western Europe. Competition from other states would have brought it down.

[Queequeg]

Spain?  Portugal?  Sicily?  The Ottoman Empire?  There isn't some kind of universal teleological drive towards superior government.  The Ostrogoths weren't better administrators than the Romans, they were just better at killing people and arrived on the map at the right time.  Ditto for the Manchus v. Ming, the Ottomans v. everyone, the Arabs v. Romans and Persians, etc...

Romanov Russia was capable of mustering a huge amount of resources at it's behest, and the upper class was extremely comfortable and built upon the ruthless exploitation of it's serfs.  After Peter, you even had an impressive talent pool of government and military officials that would have even been more impressive if Peter's successors hadn't fucked up the Table of Ranks.  There wasn't a need for dramatic reform until the mid-19th Century, but there was just never the Peter to do it. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Given its literacy levels and level of development, I agree with QQ that "russia" punched way above its weight culturally c.1840-1920 or so.  Probably could have gone longer if not for Uncle Joe.

[Queequeg]

So is your contention that competition makes efficient government?  Or is it climate? If so, why does isolated, treeless Iceland have a thousand year history of social stability , good governance and relative prosperity? 

[alfred russel]

Spain?  Portugal?  Sicily?  The Ottoman Empire?  There isn't some kind of universal teleological drive towards superior government.  The Ostrogoths weren't better administrators than the Romans, they were just better at killing people and arrived on the map at the right time.  Ditto for the Manchus v. Ming, the Ottomans v. everyone, the Arabs v. Romans and Persians, etc...

Romanov Russia was capable of mustering a huge amount of resources at it's behest, and the upper class was extremely comfortable and built upon the ruthless exploitation of it's serfs.  After Peter, you even had an impressive talent pool of government and military officials that would have even been more impressive if Peter's successors hadn't fucked up the Table of Ranks.  There wasn't a need for dramatic reform until the mid-19th Century, but there was just never the Peter to do it.

A few things to clear up:

1) I don't know what teleological means.

2) I'm an accountant, not a historian, and my primary interest outside of work is college football, not history. The ideas I have in this thread are my own and probably poorly thought out.

3) An inefficient state is going to have trouble long enduring. Less economic activity ultimately translates into lower populations, less weaponry, less technology, etc. That isn't to say that bad governments don't come up--they certainly do. The Romanovs also had a lot of territory and could marshall a lot of soldiers. But for reasons I think I already stated, their revenue sources were heavily skewed toward agriculture, so the powers in the state were reduced to getting as much blood out of that stone as possible.

In England, commerical enterprises were also lucrative. Yes a bad government could bludgeon those out of existence. But such bludgeoning would probably not endure for long, as it wasn't in anyone's interest.

[Queequeg]

I think that's the key problem.  For most of human history, keeping a lid on commercial activity was in a lot of people's interests.  Anti-Mercantile sentiment was pretty universal across world history until the Renaissance.  For established agricultural nobility, unchecked mercantile activity was dangerous to existing power structures. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The Ostrogoths weren't better administrators than the Romans, they were just better at killing people and arrived on the map at the right time. 

?
The Ostrogoths were allies (if uneasy ones) of the Eastern Empire, and defeated Odoacer, not Rome.
Theoderic was an excellent administrator - easily the best that Roman Italy had in over a century, even if we discount Cassiodorus' bias.

[Queequeg]

The Ostrogoths weren't better administrators than the Romans, they were just better at killing people and arrived on the map at the right time. 

?
The Ostrogoths were allies (if uneasy ones) of the Eastern Empire, and defeated Odoacer, not Rome.
Theoderic was an excellent administrator - easily the best that Roman Italy had in over a century, even if we discount Cassiodorus' bias.

Fair enough, that's not the best example.  Still, I think the rest holds; the Ottoman Empire of Suleyman was rapidly stultifying culturally and intellectually, but it still managed to effectively annihilate Hungary, a nation not three decades removed from Corvinus.

[garbon]

I have to side with Spellus on this one.

You think to be considered culturally literate one has to know who Tsetsefly was? 

I don't know anything about those three guys either.

I think a person should know more than 1. I am not claiming to know all of them.

[alfred russel]

So is your contention that competition makes efficient government?

Yes, although there is competition everywhere, including within the state.

Or is it climate?

I think agricultural yield of a region is linked to climate which is linked to population density. Population density is a key component of long term development.

If so, why does isolated, treeless Iceland have a thousand year history of social stability , good governance and relative prosperity?

I am not up on Icelandic history, but I was under the impression it was a poor country until recent times. Also, an island in the middle of nowhere with all the fishing to yourself kind of takes the place of agriculture, right?