Probbly not, but there has been some movement in that direction. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was the Socviet system in the 1920s after the WarCommunism period and before Stalin imposed command central planning as well ass full state ownership of the means of production, classsic socialism. The War Communism period was a command economy, but without central planning. Famine appeared as authorities demande crops from farmers.
The NEP was a partial move back from War Communism to a mixed economy in which most of the “commanding heights” were nationalized, but smaller businesses were privately owned. There was basically a makrket economy with agriculture privare and market oriented.
When the USSR ceased to exist, central planning ended in Russia, and here was widespread privatization, even as some sectors remained state owned. What has happened in recent years has been a mild trend towards renationallizing several large firms in several sectors, or letting a dominant state-owned firm become more dominant compared to privatedly owned ones. This has happened in the oil and gas sectors shere both Rosneft and Gazprom have been renationalized, with only Lukoil privately owned, now the largest privately owned firm in the economy. In banking there over 1000 privately owned banks, but the vast majority have failed and increasingly the sector is dominated by always state-owned Sberbank, with the Gazprom bank also being privatized. The railroads remain state-owned as well as the Telecoms.
It is not clear what proportion of the economy is state owned or state directed, with different sources saying anything between 40 and 70%. However, agriculture and most smaller businesses are privately owned and there is no central planning, even though the state does direct much of what goes on in the economy. The system is not precisely the same as the old NEP, but it is not all that far off and it may have become more like it in recent years.
Addendum (3/12, 8:15 AM): A way NEP different than now is that was a period of social and cultural liberalism and innovation, with the influence of the church suppressed. One saw modern literary forms, such as the poetry of Mayakovsky, constructivism in architecture, abstract art as with Kandinsky and Malevich, new names for things, and much more, although it was not a political democracy. But now, with at least nominal democracy, the churh is increasingly influential, homophopbia and xenophobia are on the rise, and a nationalist and autoritatian themes are on the rise.
Actually, this part, along with the form of state control of the economy in place, more resembles Italy in the 1920s than Russia.
Marxism is anti-homosexual. Indeed, so became the Soviet and most leninist inspired groups(Castro says high). Where did you think the “homosexuality is the bourgeois in extreme decadence” line came from? They called Hitler a fag in the late 20’s and said the Nazi’s got their inspiration from the “homosexuals”(which wasn’t that far from the truth). That was part of the Nazi “reaction” with homosexuality(especially after the haughty state dinner in 1933 with Italy…………..lol) most modern day liberals(in all forms do not understand.
The Church is nothing more than figureheads and irrelevant. Their so called increasing “role” is managed like during the WWII.
That was Stalin, when Russia/USSR went culturally very conservative. Abstract art was banned while socialist realism was favored, and modern architecture, literary, and musical movements were all suppressed, while personal social relations were also viewed in a traditional conservative manner aside from allowing women in the workplace to a substantial degree. Stalin only briefly allowed the church to operate at the height of WW II, repressing it again once the war ended.
Marx never said a thing about homosexuality. There was no particular repression of it during the NEP; That came later with Stalin.
As it is, today the church is very powerful and autonomously so, if working in cahoots with Putin, much as it did with Russian leaders in the days of three tsars. Russians needed a theology, and while it was under communist rule, that was Marxism and socilism, even as the belief in those faded in the later stages of the regime. But it is gone now, and organized religion is really back. I was just there and personally know lots of people who were not religious prior to 1991 but have since converted to Russian Orrhodoxy. It is all over the place and now immensely powerful and influential in its own right, and it and Puting together are pushing this homophobic frenzy currently going on.
A lot of people said Hitler was homosexual. A popular burlesque shtick was Goring fondling Hitler’s ass on stage. I don’t think anyone ever called him “gay”.
Russian seems to be being Russia. It isn’t all that different from under the tsars. I’ll put in a pitch for Amor Towles ‘A Gentleman in Moscow’. It’s a charming book and gives a good feel for the history of the Soviet Union.
Towles’s book is charming indeed and pretty right on the history, although slightly off on exactly where the buildings near the Hotel Metropole are actually placed. I was just there last week, and it was closed for lunch. It is owned by the city of Moscow and seems to have fallen on hard times somewhat.
Been as far east as Austria and Czech Republic. Felt safe in China, Malaysia, and the rest of Asia. What is Russia like? I have not traveled there on business. Still a chance as people tap into me.
Can you recommend a book on Eastern European history. Read The Fall of the Habsburgs. Interested in that segment of history. Thanks!
British soldiers made up songs to pass the time marching, like all soldiers.
Here is one they had about Hitler:
I do not know if there was any British intelligence about Hitler’s preferences.
Aside it is reputed that Caesar’s legions upon crossing the Rubicon sang about Roman’s locking away their wives………. or such.