Stephen Kotkin: Stalin, Putin, and the Nature of Power | Lex Fridman Podcast #63

Constraints on executive power, such as separation of powers and checks and balances, lead to better decisions and prevent extremism. Leaders without such constraints are more prone to mistakes, as seen in historical cases like Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union.

Some segments of the Russian population, often those frustrated by lack of progress or political gridlock, are attracted to a 'strong hand' leader who promises quick action. This sentiment is also influenced by the perceived functional failures of post-Soviet political systems and a lack of viable alternatives.

Putin appealed to various segments of the Russian population, including those who felt disadvantaged by the transition from communism and those in urban areas attracted to 'reform' through figures like Medvedev. His actions, such as the annexation of Crimea, also generated significant boosts in popularity, though underlying issues like corruption and declining human capital persist.

During Putin's first two terms, Russia experienced significant economic growth due to liberalizing measures like tax cuts, land sales, and deregulation. This entrepreneurial burst combined with China's insatiable demand for commodities, which resuscitated Soviet-era industries, and the ruble's crash making Russian products cheaper, all contributed to a sustained boom.

A significant long-term cost of Putin's regime is the extensive loss of human capital, with millions of educated and entrepreneurial Russians leaving the country. This brain drain is self-damaging and has accelerated, leading to a decline in innovation and future prospects for Russia.

History suggests that violence and societal upheaval rarely lead to sustainable positive outcomes or stronger institutions. An evolution from within the existing power structures, led by a patriotic group interested in institutionalization rather than personal power, is more likely to create long-term stability and growth for Russia.

Stalin's ascent was tied to the contingent events of World War I and the subsequent fall of the Tsarist regime. Vladimir Lenin, after the Bolshevik coup, created the position of General Secretary specifically for Stalin's organizational skills, and Lenin's subsequent stroke left Stalin in control of a powerful new role, which he leveraged to build a personal dictatorship.

Stalin was a true believer in communism and was genuinely interested in enacting it in reality. He was also a traditional Russian statist, dedicated to building a powerful state and defending Russian interests. These ideals, combined with his ruthlessness and cunning, helped him gain followers and justify his methods.

Marx argued that capitalism needed to be eliminated to achieve true freedom and abundance, leading to the Leninist view of transcending capitalism through revolution. However, history showed this approach led to tyranny and shortages. Social Democrats, recognizing these failures, opted to regulate capitalism, redistribute wealth, and work within existing markets and democratic institutions.

One would ask about their long-term vision for their country (25-50 years out), whether they believe current trends are sustainable, and if they worry about the future. More personal questions would delve into their daily life, how they know their actions are effective, whether they reflect on the immense power they wield, and if they sometimes wish for a simpler life, or if power has become an essential part of their being.

Unfortunately, yes, due to enduring conflicting interests and desires among people. While strong institutions can help resolve many conflicts peacefully, some will inevitably turn violent. The critical challenge for humanity is to prevent 'great power conflict' which could lead to planetary-scale destruction.