One of the most prevalent stereotypes of the Russian people is that of the heavy vodka consumer. It is so prevalent, in fact, that Bremzen devotes a greater portion of chapter 8 discussing the ramifications of state meddling in the production/sale of liquor. This is precisely because the stereotype, for the most part, is true. Their’s is a proud lineage of alcohol consumption, dating back to Prince Vladimir of Rus, over 1000 years ago, who adopted Orthodox Christianity as the state faith because Islma banned alcohol, even though the adoption of Islam would have made Rus a more viable player in the geopolitical landscape, as the rise of Islamic empires accelerated. Is this anecdote the Gospel truth? Probably not. But it does illustrate a point: that the Russian penchant for alcoholism is a very real problem, and it even has the power to influence history on greater than just a social level.
Take, for example, the waning years of Csar Nicholas II, who blamed the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese War on the drunkenness of Russian soldiers. Thus, he banned alcohol on the brink of WWI, fearing that history might repeat itself with another Russian humiliation. What resulted was a “samogon” (moonshining) industry so vast that the illegal production of liquor sent the grain market in a downward spiral. No grain= no food. No food= hunger. Hunger= starvation. Starvation= revolution. Revoltuion in the form of Bolshevism, spearheaded by Lenin. Lenin almost made the same mistake, until he realized the peasantry does not care if Communism lives or dies as they sold their grain to the samogon industry rather than the party. This caused more hunger, and the volatile nature of the early Soviet Union was only further destabilized, which led to the adoption of the NEP program by Lenin, which was an embarrassing capitulation to Capitalism for the early Soviet Union. And, perhaps, the general disregard for the welfare of the Soviet shown by the peasants, especially with their reluctance to nationalize grain, led to Stalin’s forced collectivization, which led to the deaths of millions. Perhaps.
Regardless of the “what ifs,” vodka did play a key role in the formation of the Soviet Union. So, it is also interesting to look at how it contributed to the end of the Soviet Union in the Gorbachev era. A general low quality of the standard of life and various atrocities committed by the Soviet Union created the need for an escape in the Soviet citizens. And, in the Russian tradition, they turned to vodka. This led to decreased productivity and general worker laziness, something Gorbachev attributed to the economic hardships of the Soviet. So what did he do? That’s right, he instituted state control over vodka production again. He created vodka lines and a vodka market so small that the Russian alcoholism was not being fed adequately. So, workers began to demand payment in vodka, which only furthered the destabilization of the ruble and a general agitation to the Soviet public. And the eventual toppling of the Soviet Union was caused, at least in significant part, due to a ravaged economy. So, perhaps yet again, vodka’s role in the determination of history has been underplayed. Thus, it is interesting enough to see, and maybe vodka became the alpha and the omega of the Soviet Union, the determining factor in its formation and demise. That certainly seems a very Russian end to the Soviet, which to generations of Americans has become synonymous with Russia. And maybe it signifies a return to the pre-Soviet Russianness, with the reemergence of the aristocracy(now considered big business Capitalists) and a disparaging wealth gap (one similar to what became a point of contention during the October Revolution in the first place) after the fall of the wall.