7 Answers

  1. If you don't play with words, then theoretically this is quite possible. First, if you don't judge by Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and 10-15 other cities, then Russia did not go very far from the Middle Ages: a natural economy, tribal relations, a mafia model of organizing both, xenophobia, a muddy syncretic folk religion, etc.�

    If it seems to anyone that progress is irreversible and the conquest of civilization (and there is only one European civilization) is forever, then no. Civilization is a thin film that slowly builds up on the wild humanity and is completely instantly peeled off. The normal civilized state of Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution turned into a medieval village. Normal civilized (socially, I'm not talking about politics and their socialist dictators here) Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and partly Algeria, Yemen, and Lebanon have confidently embarked on the path of turning into medieval villages during the “Arab Spring” and unsuccessful NATO campaigns in the region. Radical Christian communities that buy up land and set up villages for their adherents (Vissarionites, Amish, Mennonites) manage to return the modern tech intellectual to the status of an illiterate plowman in just a couple of years. This is also true across the state. Given the absolute passivity of the Russians and their inability and unwillingness to control their own destiny, the Iran effect is very likely. We have seen how in just 10 years the country has lost all democratic freedoms in general, all laws, including the Constitution, were abolished in a completely legal manner, the institutions of legislative and judicial power, public organizations and political parties were completely destroyed – and the majority of the population does not care.�

    At the last stage of the current criminocracy's existence, it may benefit from turning the country completely into a besieged camp of citizens without a single thought of their own and in constant hysteria from the constant cheating of dangers from the “external enemy” and from not knowing how to step in so as not to violate any ban. And it may well bring the people to this. Once again, Gleb Pavlovsky and his merry friends (the authors of “sovereign democracy”, “national leader”, “popular front”, “spiritual bonds” and other ideologemes) will sit down at their fashionable macbooks and beautifully describe all this in the words of Fukuyama and Zizek, and receive grants and bonuses for this.

  2. No, it can't. No one can go back in time. Because humanity is changing irreversibly, you can not step twice into the same river, even degradation is also really moving forward and down, and not back.

  3. The central part of the question is the definition of “Middle Ages”. The image of it is too blurry and different.

    If history is considered a progressive development, and the Middle Ages is considered a system of special political, social, economic and cultural characteristics, then the quote of Heraclitus is appropriate: “The road up and down is one and the same road.”

    Using the example of the economic sphere, you can imagine what “medieval Russia” should look like.

    In the Marxist interpretation, the Middle Ages and feudalism ( one of the social formations) accompany each other.
    Its characteristics are as follows:
    – the basis of the economy – agriculture, low level of technical development, predominance of manual labor
    -subsistence economy (mainly production not for sale, but for personal consumption)
    – feudal relations ( rigid hierarchy of society, personal dependence, special forms of land ownership)
    – corporate relations, collectivism.

    It should be noted that all of the above is suitable “only for describing” the European Middle Ages, and the Eastern and Russian models differ significantly from it.

    As a result, the return to the Middle Ages begins with the creation of conditions for the “transition”. For example, in ancient times, this is a crisis of the ancient economic model.�

    Theoretically, any country, not just Russia, can make such a journey “back”, but my inner intuition tells me that the Middle Ages “then” and the Middle Ages “now” are by no means the same. They are not identical, if only because only a partial reconstruction of the elements of that era is possible ( for example, the aforementioned Iran does not meet the conditions of the “Middle Ages” from an economic point of view), and there will also be completely different prerequisites and conditions that “trigger” the mechanism of transition from one formation to another.

    The meaning of another quote from Heraclitus becomes clear: “You can't enter the same river twice.” Russia, which has passed the stage of the Middle Ages, will not be able to “return” to it.

    Therefore, the answer to this question will depend on the chosen methodology.

  4. And what is considered the “Middle Ages”? The feudal system? Switching to shop floor production?! As I understand it, the context of “Russia's transition to the Middle Ages” boils down only to the growing popularity of old moral values, the growing influence of the Orthodox Church (and religion in general) in society, etc.If we evaluate the modern stop by these indicators, it seems to me that we are not going to the Russian Middle Ages, but to the Russian XIX century, during the time of Slavophilism, a wide interest in “Russian antiquity” and love for the pseudo-Russian style. In other words, adherents of such ideas sympathize more with the facade of their ideas about “Russian antiquity” than with its real essence. But it is difficult to say how widespread this will become. Today, there are still many people who sympathize, for example, with the Soviet past, so in ideological terms, I do not believe that Russia will wallow in the “Middle Ages”.

  5. Russia will not return to the Middle Ages, because the country is involved in globalization, including on security issues. Also, the information environment, the Internet and links with other countries are firmly established. However, there are groups of neo-Luddites who want to live with fewer achievements of civilization.

  6. There is an idea that is fashionable in very narrow circles — neoreaction or Dark Enlightenment-the essence of which is to return the social structure of the European Middle Ages, literally — to the dismantling of all the socio-political achievements made after the French Revolution. Even though this idea is marginal even for altrites, some countries seem to be adopting it as a program.

    Russia has been particularly successful, although Poland and Hungary are trying to keep up. I hope that even the most evil quilted jackets will not deny that in their country there is no equality before the law even on paper, and the only chance for a normal life is to join the elite. That the difference between the regions and the capital is huge. That commoners do not have access to quality education and culture — only to pray, be fruitful, plow and fight. That the ROC is in conjunction with the government. That the place at the trough is passed on to the children. That objectionable people are physically eliminated and trials are delayed, which sometimes end up with the victim in the dock. Etc. What's wrong with the Middle Ages?

  7. In many ways, this depends on whether idiots can do such things as moving the capital beyond the Urals or “restoring” the Siberian Language . Which openly leads to an analog of feudal fragmentation. But since idiots do this, and the Russians themselves do not need such gifts, to put it mildly, the answer to your question is no.

Leave a Reply