‘Firm Hand’ Didn’t Totally Unite Soviet Society and Wouldn’t Do So in Russia Today, Moscow Social Chamber Member Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 22 – One of the most widespread myths spreading among Russians today is that Soviet society was totally united by “the firm hand” of the leaders and that the rise of another firm hand now would have the same result for Russia today, according to Dmitry Krasnov, a Moscow lawyer.

            Writing in Moskovsky Komsomolets, the member of the Social Chamber of the Russian capital, says that there were always workers who took part in strikes  (for a better life and soldiers who deserted (mk.ru/social/2025/07/22/mif-o-krepkoy-ruke-i-soznatelnykh-grazhdanakh-kakoy-byla-realnaya-zhizn-v-sovetskom-soyuze.html).

            That is in the nature of all societies, including Soviet and Russian, and creating a myth that such “contradictions” had been overcome in Soviet times is dangerous because no country can return to a past however much it wants to especially if the past that it imagines in fact never existed.

“There have always been dissatisfied, ignorant, cunning, criminal people in society,” Krasnov points out, including in Soviet times. Then, “there was a lot of them, a lot of disorder, confusion, disorder. And there have always been contradictions that reached the level of open demonstrations, protests, strikes.”

“And punitive measures of a "firm hand" did not cure society of these ailments,” he continues. “If you know the facts and honestly compare our current Russian society with the Soviet one, but not with the myth about it, you will have to admit that now there is much more civic responsibility and order.”

The appearance of such an article in Moscow’s largest newspaper is remarkable given that Putin and his Kremlin media have promoted the idea that the strong hand of the Soviet state completely united the population and that a similar strong hand is needed in the future if Russia is to do the same. 

Obviously, there are many in the Russian Federation who understand that such arguments are based on a myth and that if their country is to make progress, it will have to make an honest assessment about the nature of their country’s past and equally important about the nature of societies and the way they inevitably generate protests within them.