Today is one hundred years, according to the old Russian calendar, since Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks captured the Winter Palace in what is now St. Petersburg and seized power. Not much has changed.
Although not in an economic sense, research by Renesans Kapital, an investment bank specializing in that region, showed. It says that the Russias of 1917 and 2017 have more in common than one might expect, writes Reuters.
Take, for example, debt. Just before the October Revolution, about a third of Russia's debt was in the hands of foreigners. The situation is the same today.
Before 1917, foreigners were paid 5-8 percent dividends from Russian stocks. It is the same today.
Pre-Soviet Russia lagged behind the world's major powers in terms of industrial power, but was considered to be on par with Brazil and Mexico. The situation is still pretty much the same today.
Raw materials were Russia's main capital and accounted for two-thirds of its exports. It's still the same share today, according to Renesans, an investment bank focused on emerging markets.
After all, Russia was then the largest grain exporter. According to the bank's research, during the period from 2015 to 2017, the states of the old imperial Russia were once again the world's largest exporter of grain.
It's not like nothing has changed at all, though. The Soviet era, for example, brought widespread literacy, although Renaissance economist Charlie Roberston notes that the most successful areas in Russia today are those where literacy was highest in 1917.
Industrialization also took place in the Soviet Union, albeit uncompetitive compared to Britain, the United States, and Japan.
Robertson believes that Russia could have achieved much more if the revolution and the Soviet years that followed had not stopped the development of a modern economy.
"Russia was catching up with Italy, industrializing as fast as Japan, and overtaking Spain in the first half of the 20th century," he wrote.
"If that progress had continued, and without...famines and invasions by foreign enemies, we think Russia would be more populous, richer and more democratic than it is today," Roberston said.
"Without 1917, Russia might have suffered only three (or fewer) such disasters, like China or Germany, and would be much more prosperous...today."
However, a commentary in the London "Times" points out that the fall of communism ultimately came about because the revolution could no longer produce goods. It was increasingly obvious that the planned economy could not respond to consumer demand.
"The gap between the promises and the fulfillment and the lifestyles of pampered party officials and ordinary Russians has become so great that the post-war generation has become deeply cynical. And while the West saw the Soviet power as a threat, the majority of Russians saw it only as a front for a collapsing system," the newspaper writes.
The Times adds that the immediate effects of the revolution were particularly felt in culture, as the Russian intelligentsia welcomed what it considered a liberation. The excitement, however, did not last as communism tightened its bureaucratic grip.
"At the height of Stalinism, every aspect of cultural life was harnessed to support the ruling ideology," states The Times.
The paper states that traces of the revolution are barely visible in Russia today.
"The statues of Lenin that cheered the masses in every city square almost disappeared. The hammer and sickle no longer adorn the national flag. The internationalist message was replaced by authoritarian nationalism. "Atheism and state propaganda have been replaced by dedication to the Russian Christian heritage," the newspaper said.
"The fire of the revolution has gone out. It ended painfully, discrediting its achievements. There won't be many official celebrations of this anniversary," the comment concludes.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
