Return to Stalinism in Russia?

[poor knight]

To all our Russian friends on this group: What in the world is happening there?! Every month it seems we hear of another example of Russia's backsliding on democracy, Putin's increasingly centralized grip on power and the public's seemingly stronger and stronger support of him. I fear another change is inevitable, one where power is again controlled by a few men, but this time without any idealogical framework other than greed and control.

I remember meeting Gorbachev back in the mid 1980's when he came to visit Stanford, and thinking, "Here is one of the greatest men the 20th century has ever produced." Now I hear he is reviled in his own country and the cult of Stalin is making a comeback.

I fear for the coming years.

[tzar]

... I remember meeting Gorbachev back in the mid 1980's when he came to visit Stanford, and thinking, "Here is one of the greatest men the 20th century has ever produced." Now I hear he is reviled in his own country and the cult of Stalin is making a comeback...

i.m.o.
gorbie should be hanged - for what he, and those traitors behind him, did to the soviet union.

stalin or not,
the gravest mistake was made as to ideology being changed,
which slowed down an economical reforms.

look at china,
they crushed crowds of democrats by tanks there,
now china is rich and rising up to a superpower status.

now we, russians, have to catch up with chinese,
'cause we lost too much time on all this democracy-schlemocracy we didnt dare to crush by tanks back in 1991.

[Suvorov]

To all our Russian friends on this group: What in the world is happening there?! Every month it seems we hear of another example of Russia's backsliding on democracy, Putin's increasingly centralized grip on power and the public's seemingly stronger and stronger support of him. I fear another change is inevitable, one where power is again controlled by a few men, but this time without any idealogical framework other than greed and control.

I remember meeting Gorbachev back in the mid 1980's when he came to visit Stanford, and thinking, "Here is one of the greatest men the 20th century has ever produced." Now I hear he is reviled in his own country and the cult of Stalin is making a comeback.

I fear for the coming years.

It has been a constant flaw of western commentators to treat Russia as European but the fact of the matter is that much of Europeanisation in Russian society has only ever been skin deep and mainly limited to the cultural, urbanised elites. The reason this is so is relatively simple: Russia does not share a common ancestry with the rest of Europe: the invasion of the Mongol horde meant that Western influence in Russia was kept incredibly small until the reign of Peter the Great.

Now why is this a problem for Russian democracy? The Mongol Horde imparted a highly autocratic system of government on Muscovy. The Grand Duke of Moscow imitated the Khans of the Golden Horde when it came to his subject peoples: he did not ask for money or men, he demanded them.

This had been the system in the west under many of the medieval kings but there constitutional bodies that limited the power of the ruler slowly developed. Towns, cities and nobilities were generally able to extract privileges, right, exemptions and a political voice from their rulers: the most famous example of this in the English speaking world is the Magna Carta where English nobles managed to extract from King John the right to assent to taxation through Parliament. Far less famous but far more prolific than anywhere else in Europe were the privileges, powers and exemptions that the Polish nobility were able to extract: by the 15th Century, they had reduced their monarchy to an elective one and had significantly curtailed the King's powers in their own favour.  

This is how democracy began in the west: small groups were able to extract inviolable rights from their rulers. As time proceeded, more and more of the population got access to those rights. Because the rights were obtained through struggle and were then practised for many centuries, they became part of the European cultural mindset. Institutions developed around these rights: parliaments, diets, sejms etc.

Not so in Russia. There were none of these constitutional bodies: where some did exist (in Novgorod and Pskov, for example) the expanding Muscovite state quickly destroyed them. There was the Boyar Duma but this was simply an advisory body that had no set structure and no set powers: by the latter half of the 17th Century, it had become so unwieldy (nobles took to the practice of packing the Duma with their own clients, thus swelling its size into the hundreds) that it essentially became a recruitment pool.

Peter the Great was the first Russian ruler to try and import Western ideas and institutions en masse: to cut a long story short, it was a failure. Peter placed western style institutions into a context where virtually no-one had the cultural mindset to handle them: the result was that things proceeded much in the same as they had before, only now the institutions through which people worked had western names. The rights and privileges so fundamental to the Western models did not exist in Russia and Peter valued his supremacy far too much to introduce them. How did Peter expect a Russian town to behave like a Western town when the Russian urban population possessed none of the privileges that European urban populations had managed to extract from their rulers over the course of the centuries?

And so you see the problem: democracy has no roots in Russia. There are no bodies that have ever been truly democratic (or, more accurately, democratic in a truly western sense of the word) and so how can we expect any bodies in Russia to really know how to behave democratically? The tsars always ruled absolutely: the Duma following 1905 slowly had its rights and powers curtailed until they were non-existent. The Soviet institutions were hardly any better: they were almost all dominated by members of the Communist Party who danced to the tune of General Secretary of the Party.

To conclude this rather lengthy post: in Russia there is no tradition of democracy, there are no bodies that are truly able to behave democratically and the majority of the people do not possess the cultural mindset required to be a discerning electorate. That is why democracy has so frequently failed to take root and why it will continue to fail. Western democracy did not emerge over night: it is the product of centuries of slow and often painful progress. You cannot suddenly attempt to impose the product of centuries of political, social and cultural evolution onto a country where no such evolution has taken place: the people and the institutions will simply not be able to hand it. That is why Peter the Great's westernisation ultimately failed and it is why American attempts to democratise the Middle East are failing as we speak.

[poor knight]

Suvorov,

Thank you so much for that excellent post. It reminded me of a very interesting TV program on the European Dark Ages I saw recently. From the fall of Rome, it took nearly 1000 years for Europe to emerge into a nascent group of democracies, and then another three hundred or so for them to really begin to flourish.

I suppose I forget this when thinking of Russia. It seems hard to believe that as "modern" a country as Russia often appears to be, and now so intertwined with Europe economically, could be so far from reaching that goal. And yet, Europe's own history suggests otherwise.

I think the problem may be even more intractable in the Middle East because the resources and thus the wealth are held in such a tiny few hands, and because not only is there no history of democracy, there is not even a history of any sort of sustained middle class. At least in Russia there has been a history over the past 100 years of some sense of "smoothing" of the economic strata, but in the middle east it has always been a few rich and a very many poor with no industries to support them (except the "charity" of the wealthy).

Your explanation, Suvorov, does not lessen my fear for the Russian people, but I understand the situation better. Thank you.

[tzar]

... the invasion of the Mongol horde meant that Western influence in Russia was kept incredibly small until the reign of Peter the Great...The Mongol Horde imparted a highly autocratic system of government on Muscovy. The Grand Duke of Moscow imitated the Khans of the Golden Horde when it came to his subject peoples: he did not ask for money or men, he demanded them...

here, you fell into exoticism and stereotypes, though.
i know - the west needs some exotic stuff to romanticize historical/cultural aspects,
but, let me disappoint you.
mongols weren't much of influence on russia.

see, mongols only made russia pay taxes to their ''golden horde'',
but russia's state system and russia's religion they left intact.

mongols, unlike anglo-saxons nowadays, were not interested in imposing their own system of values/culture on others.
they only wanted countries they conquered to pay them taxes.

the real influence on russia was, of course, visantia and its state/society system.
tsar ivan ''the terrible'' was the most prominent promoter of visantian governmental system in russia.

... Peter the Great was the first Russian ruler to try and import Western ideas and institutions en masse: to cut a long story short, it was a failure...

in fact,
russian monarchs weren't interested in importing ''western ideas''.
on contrary, they seen ''western ideas'' as a threat to russian state.
though - they did play some political games with europe every now and then.

[Suvorov]

here, you fell into exoticism and stereotypes, though.
i know - the west needs some exotic stuff to romanticize historical/cultural aspects,
but, let me disappoint you.
mongols weren't much of influence on russia.

see, mongols only made russia pay taxes to their ''golden horde'',
but russia's state system and russia's religion they left intact.

mongols, unlike anglo-saxons nowadays, were not interested in imposing their own system of values/culture on others.
they only wanted countries they conquered to pay them taxes.

the real influence on russia was, of course, visantia and its state/society system.
tsar ivan ''the terrible'' was the most prominent promoter of visantian governmental system in russia.

Firstly, before I begin, am I to take 'vistantian' to mean Byzantine (by which I mean the Orthodox Empire that spanned Greece and Turkey between the 5th and the 15th Centuries)? I looked up the term 'vistantian' but found no matches.

Regardless, I agree with you that the Mongols left the Russian religious system intact. That is common knowledge. However, to see the influence of Mongol domination of Muscovy, we need only compare it to some of the other Russian cities that did not fall under Tartar dominance. Take the Republic of Novgorod, for example, where constitutional bodies did in fact develop. Pskov is another example. Where the Mongol horde was not present, corporational institutions did come into existence: wherever the Horde was present, highly autocratic methods of governance came to be the norm.

in fact,
russian monarchs weren't interested in importing ''western ideas''.
on contrary, they seen ''western ideas'' as a threat to russian state.
though - they did play some political games with europe every now and then

To claim that Peter the Great did not attempt to import European ideas and institutions is an absurdity that is contradicted by all of the evidence. The institutions he installed were named after western ones, as were the ranks in the Table of Ranks. Peter's personal philosophy was distinctly western and was influenced by several German thinkers, mostly promiently Pufendorf. He brought westerners to Russia in far greater numbers than ever before and installed them into high positions in his government (the most obvious example being Baron Andrei Ostermann, a German who eventually became the head of foreign policy under Anna Ivanovna). Peter even had his portrait painted in the western style: compare his portraits to those of his father Alexei and you will clearly see what I mean. Alexei was painted in traditional Russian clothing whilst Peter was shown in modern Western battle armour with a naval fleet in the background. Consider Peter's most superficial reforms: he ordered his nobility to cut their long beards (he even cut beards himself) so that the nobles fitted in with western fashions. He ordered that western style balls be performed. He decreed that the nobility were to dress in western clothes.

To be painfully brief, there is no doubt that Peter wanted to instill western ideas and values in his people. To what extent he was successful in doing so is another matter: I personally contend that he failed to truly westernise Russian and instead simply alienated the cultural elite from the rest of the Russian populace.

[tzar]

... to see the influence of Mongol domination of Muscovy, we need only compare it to some of the other Russian cities that did not fall under Tartar dominance. Take the Republic of Novgorod, for example, where constitutional bodies did in fact develop. Pskov is another example. Where the Mongol horde was not present, corporational institutions did come into existence: wherever the Horde was present, highly autocratic methods of governance came to be the norm.

i'm afraid - you are under impression of some myths.
you even call novgorod a ''republic''.
novgorod as well as pskov, in terms of ''democracy'', was none the better than moscow.

as for corporational institutions - ''thanx'' to them the mongols successfully invaded russia and imposed their tax system on her.

and once again:
those ''highly autocratic methods of governance'' came from  byzantia, not from ''golden horde''.
see,
mongols - they were just sort of ''bunch of racketeers''.
they weren't what we call a state.
they weren't even a ''civilisation''.
they didn't care as to ''methods of governance'' conquered contries were governed with.
they only wanted taxes to be paid in time.

... To claim that Peter the Great did not attempt to import European ideas and institutions is an absurdity that is contradicted by all of the evidence. The institutions he installed were named after western ones, as were the ranks in the Table of Ranks. Peter's personal philosophy was distinctly western and was influenced by several German thinkers, mostly promiently Pufendorf. He brought westerners to Russia in far greater numbers than ever before and installed them into high positions in his government (the most obvious example being Baron Andrei Ostermann, a German who eventually became the head of foreign policy under Anna Ivanovna). Peter even had his portrait painted in the western style...

as for peter the great and catherine the great (former german princess, btw) -
they certainly did play some political games, pretending they would ''westernise'' russia.
no way,
in fact - nor serfdom was abolished neither society was secularised.

and let me disillusion you as to foreingners in russian authority system.
as soon as the foreingner grabs power in russia,
the things here get much more ''autocratic'' than when russia is ruled by the russian.

see,
autocracy is being brought to russia from everywhere - from west, from east...
and, here in russia, it easely gets preference over democracy.

[Suvorov]

i'm afraid - you are under impression of some myths.
you even call novgorod a ''republic''.
novgorod as well as pskov, in terms of ''democracy'', was none the better than moscow.

I call it a republic because that was what it was called: Novgorodskaya feodal'naya respublika (the Novgorod Feudal Republic).

While not a democracy (although I never claimed it was democratic), it definitely had more corporational bodies than Muscovy:the veche for example was a popular assembly that compromised of members of the free urban and rural population. It had the power to elect military commanders and other government officials. Merchants also had their own unions through which they exercised a political voice.

That is far more than Muscovy ever had.

and once again:
those ''highly autocratic methods of governance'' came from  byzantia, not from ''golden horde''.

Byzantine influence in medieval and early modern Russia is still an under-researched subject area but I am hesitant to place too much emphasis on it. Byzantine civilisation had a lot of influence on the Church and certain elements of court ceremony but I doubt its influence was particularly great in any other area of Russian life.

see,
mongols - they were just sort of ''bunch of racketeers''.
they weren't what we call a state.
they weren't even a ''civilisation''.
they didn't care as to ''methods of governance'' conquered contries were governed with.
they only wanted taxes to be paid in time.

Which is my point. The tsars imitated this system. They simply wanted taxes fast and established the simplest system possible to obtain that tax. The tsar did not have to ask any of his citizens for permission to tax them (like English kings had to, for example): he simply demanded that the tax be paid. That is how the Mongols influenced Russian government.

as for peter the great and catherine the great (former german princess, btw) -
they certainly did play some political games, pretending they would ''westernise'' russia.
no way,
in fact - nor serfdom was abolished neither society was secularised.

Serfdom was not abolished but the state was secularised: I do not see how you can claim otherwise. Peter took away the Church's independence by abolishing the patriarchate and placing the Church under the control of a government department, the Holy Synod. Both he and Catherine the Great turned the vast lands of the Church either in to state lands or they gave them  to their nobles. Peter even made surplus priests and monks join the army.

Clearly there was a massive process of secularisation under the two rulers.

and let me disillusion you as to foreingners in russian authority system.
as soon as the foreingner grabs power in russia,
the things here get much more ''autocratic'' than when russia is ruled by the russian.

Russia was no more (or no less) autocratic when foreigners were involved.

[tzar]

I call it a republic because that was what it was called: Novgorodskaya feodal'naya respublika (the Novgorod Feudal Republic)...it definitely had more corporational bodies than Muscovy:the veche for example was a popular assembly that comprised of members of the free urban and rural population. It had the power to elect military commanders and other government officials. Merchants also had their own unions through which they exercised a political voice...

call it what you like,
but novgorod was as much as republic as, for instance, the ancient rome was.

vetche or not,
let us not oversimplify or idealize its role in russia's history.

after all,
novgorod didn't differ from moscow in terms of language, culture, religion and mentality.

... Byzantine civilisation had a lot of influence on the Church and certain elements of court ceremony but I doubt its influence was particularly great in any other area of Russian life.

that's pretty enough of influence! eh?
at least - for that period of russian history.

... The tsar did not have to ask any of his citizens for permission to tax them (like English kings had to, for example): he simply demanded that the tax be paid. That is how the Mongols influenced Russian government.

here we go...
russian tzar is bad, english king is good etc.
smacks of oversimplification a bit...

if russian tax system came from mongols,
then - i'm grateful to them,
because i don't pay taxes whatsoever (and never did, actually).

anyways,
russian tax system has always been so relaxed it has never been an issue in russia.

Serfdom was not abolished but the state was secularised...Peter took away the Church's independence by abolishing the patriarchate and placing the Church under the control of a government department, the Holy Synod. Both he and Catherine the Great turned the vast lands of the Church either in to state lands or they gave them  to their nobles. Peter even made surplus priests and monks join the army...

secularisation in russian society started long before peter the great, and it was a natural process (though very slow).

peter the great didn't take away church's independence, since - it had been church's support that gave him the power.
more likely,
he united his actions with those of the church, in order to gain more control of society.

as concerns ''the vast lands of the church'' - ''vast is mother russia'', y'know...
lands were given to nobles, anyway.

and as to making ''surplus priests and monks join the army'' - i doubt that ''westernisation'' starts from the actions like that.

[Suvorov]

call it what you like,
but novgorod was as much as republic as, for instance, the ancient rome was.

vetche or not,
let us not oversimplify or idealize its role in russia's history.

after all,
novgorod didn't differ from moscow in terms of language, culture, religion and mentality.

Firstly, I did not call it that: that was its name. Nor do I contend that the name was particularly accurate. In the words of Voltaire, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire but people still called it that (and still do).

Secondly, who is idealising anything? I am simply commenting on Novgorod's structures in comparison to those of Muscovy in order to demonstrate the impact of the Mongol Horde. The comparison should be fairly easy to see: Novgorod does not get conquered by the Horde and has corporational institutions that moderate the power of the ruler. Muscovy does fall under the Tartar yoke and does not develop such corporational bodies: instead, autocracy flourishes.

here we go...
russian tzar is bad, english king is good etc.
smacks of oversimplification a bit...

Where did I issue a judgement like that? I simply compared the way in which the English monarchy worked to the way in which the Muscovite tsars operated in order to demonstrate (again) that Muscovy did not have the corporational bodies of the west.  My intentional was entirely netural, I can assure you. Unlike yourself, I do not attempt to use history to justify nationalist sentiments.

if russian tax system came from mongols,
then - i'm grateful to them,
because i don't pay taxes whatsoever (and never did, actually).

I doubt Mongol influence can still be felt 700 years down the line. We are discussing its influence on early-modern Tsarist Russia, not the post-Soviet federal republic of Russia.

anyways,
russian tax system has always been so relaxed it has never been an issue in russia.

Ha. The tax burdens on the majority of the populace of Tsarist Russia were enormous, not to mention the services they were expected to perform for the state and their landlords.

I suppose you are going to return soon to your other mindless argument that unemployment did not exist in Russia before 1991?

secularisation in russian society started long before peter the great, and it was a natural process (though very slow).

I did not claim otherwise.

peter the great didn't take away church's independence, since - it had been church's support that gave him the power.

Not really. The church generally sided with Peter's half brother Ivan until his death and it is interesting to note that many of the Tsarevich Alexei's closest collaborators were Orthodox church men (generally from the Ukraine).

more likely,
he united his actions with those of the church, in order to gain more control of society.

He did use the support of the Church to bolster his control over society but this was not a co-operative process: he essentially took over the Church and subordinated it to the Senate.

as concerns ''the vast lands of the church'' - ''vast is mother russia'', y'know...
lands were given to nobles, anyway.

How does this respond to my point that Peter and his successors secularised the lands of the Church? To me, your comment seems to be rather irrelevant.

and as to making ''surplus priests and monks join the army'' - i doubt that ''westernisation'' starts from the actions like that.

I used that as evidence of secularisation, not westernisation. These are two seperate (although some times connected) processes.

[lerik]

To all our Russian friends on this group: What in the world is happening there?! Every month it seems we hear of another example of Russia's backsliding on democracy, Putin's increasingly centralized grip on power and the public's seemingly stronger and stronger support of him. I fear another change is inevitable, one where power is again controlled by a few men, but this time without any idealogical framework other than greed and control.

I remember meeting Gorbachev back in the mid 1980's when he came to visit Stanford, and thinking, "Here is one of the greatest men the 20th century has ever produced." Now I hear he is reviled in his own country and the cult of Stalin is making a comeback.

I fear for the coming years.

Yes poor knight I agree with you that Russia has alot of problems with democracy now.Putin is increasing his control over the country but there are many  reasons for that.
For most of the history,Russia was run by one person that decided everything,there was virtually no place for other opinions than that of czars and latter then that of the communist party.Russian people are not used to living in democracy!Thats the point why so many people support Putin's course.Another reason in my opinion,why Putin doesnt want democratic parties to be strong is that it would lead to the disintegration of the country.Some democrats think that the  Kurill islands should be given to Japan,Chechnya should become independant and so on and that would lead to the whole country's total fall and decline.
Another reason why so many people hate Gorbachev is because they have enjoyed life in the Soviet Union.This mainly concerns teacher,doctors and pensioners.Back in Soviet Union they were well-off than they are now.The average wage of a teacher and doctor now is 10 000 roubles per month which is approx. 330 dollars.The pensioners receive 3000 robles on average which is like 100 dollars per month at most.Knowing that all facilities in the cities are very expensive,especially in Moscow,these people can only survive if their relatives help them.They have to live on 100 dollars per month and from that money they have to pay a considerable sum for all the maintenance bills so they have virtually nothing left for themselves.To these people Gorbachev is a symbol of the destruction of their normal life wher they could be considerably well-off.

[tzar]

To all our Russian friends on this group: What in the world is happening there?! Every month it seems we hear of another example of Russia's backsliding on democracy, Putin's increasingly centralized grip on power and the public's seemingly stronger and stronger support of him. I fear another change is inevitable, one where power is again controlled by a few men, but this time without any idealogical framework other than greed and control.

I remember meeting Gorbachev back in the mid 1980's when he came to visit Stanford, and thinking, "Here is one of the greatest men the 20th century has ever produced." Now I hear he is reviled in his own country and the cult of Stalin is making a comeback.

I fear for the coming years.

...The pensioners receive 3000 robles on average which is like 100 dollars per month at most.Knowing that all facilities in the cities are very expensive,especially in Moscow,these people can only survive if their relatives help them.They have to live on 100 dollars per month and from that money they have to pay a considerable sum for all the maintenance bills so they have virtually nothing left for themselves...

all is not so simple, though.
utilities' prices in russia are being subsidized by russian government, which cuts their cost to 500rub per month - for pensioneers. (my grandmother is happy, anyway).
also, there's still - the medical treatment and education given for free, in russia.

[tzar]

... The comparison should be fairly easy to see: Novgorod does not get conquered by the Horde and has corporational institutions that moderate the power of the ruler. Muscovy does fall under the Tartar yoke and does not develop such corporational bodies: instead, autocracy flourishes...

so what?
that only means - novgorodian ''corporocracy'' turned out to be not up to the challenges of the moment.

in russia - it's always like: ''autocracy'' rules whereas ''corporocracy'' sucks.
anyways -
the victors are not to be judged, y'know...

... The tax burdens on the majority of the populace of Tsarist Russia were enormous, not to mention the services they were expected to perform for the state and their landlords.
I suppose you are going to return soon to your other mindless argument that unemployment did not exist in Russia before 1991?...

concerning your unsubstantiated assertions as to ''tax burdens'' and ''unemployment'' in russia -
sources, please...

... (peter the great) did use the support of the Church to bolster his control over society but this was not a co-operative process: he essentially took over the Church and subordinated it to the Senate
...

ah, the politics...
but - as a fact,
peter the great, as any other russian monarch, did everything to slow down the secularization process.
and - btw,
orthodox church in russia remained so strong - it was capable of unchurching and cursing the likes of leo tolstoy, for example.

[Suvorov]

so what?
that only means - novgorodian ''corporocracy'' turned out to be not up to the challenges of the moment.

So, it supports my original point: there have never been any constitutional bodies in Muscovite Russia that were able to limit the Tsar, which is why democracy has such a problem taking route there.

anyways -
the victors are not to be judged, y'know...

Victors deserve evaulation as much, if not more so, than the losers.

concerning your unsubstantiated assertions as to ''tax burdens'' and ''unemployment'' in russia -
sources, please...

Read Arcadius Kahan: Plough, the Hammer and the Knout: Economic History of Eighteenth-century Russia . It is widely considered to be the most comprehensive book on the economics of eigtheenth century Russia. I think you will find more than enough evidence to back my assertions with regards to tax and unemployment.

peter the great, as any other russian monarch, did everything to slow down the secularization process.
and - btw,
orthodox church in russia remained so strong - it was capable of unchurching and cursing the likes of leo tolstoy, for example.

Nope. Peter the Great increased the secularisation process to unprecedented levels and his successors (mostly notably Catherine) were all too pleased to carry on his legacy. The Church was a wealthy institution: secularising its lands and bring its finances under State control brought many profits for a government desperately in need of finance.

And excommunicating Leo Tolstoi is hardly a demonstration of a strength.

[tzar]

... there have never been any constitutional bodies in Muscovite Russia that were able to limit the Tsar, which is why democracy has such a problem taking route there.

agreed.
no way - corporocracy ever succeeds in russia

...
Victors deserve evaulation as much, if not more so, than the losers.

oh, but - what can you really do against the victors?
what can you do against them, exept for bashing their reputation?

...
Read Arcadius Kahan: Plough, the Hammer and the Knout: Economic History of Eighteenth-century Russia . It is widely considered to be the most comprehensive book on the economics of eigtheenth century Russia.

impossible - to find any works of a.kahan in the net...
and i wonder,
how the book of such title (''plough, the hammer and the knout'', eh?) could ever be a ''widely considered to be the most comprehensive book on the economics...''

btw,
this a.kahan was some american university professor and was/is totally unknown in russia.
and - what can americans tell of history of russia but a highly slanted stuff?
see, americans - they actually hate tzars, serfdom etc.

... Peter the Great increased the secularisation process to unprecedented levels...The Church was a wealthy institution: secularising its lands and bring its finances under State control brought many profits for a government desperately in need of finance.
... excommunicating Leo Tolstoi is hardly a demonstration of a strength.

myths those.
such kind of actions - regarding the church, that peter the great took - had been taken by ivan the terrible long before.
- politics, nothing more...

as for excommunication of tolstoi - it surely was a demonstration of a strength of the church.