Party in the USSR

[rvg]

...As I said, Nicholas was a fool and a man badly out of touch with his people but he was still better than Lenin or Stalin, who could have remade Russia as a Liberal western-looking democracy and instead grabbed it by the throat and stamped on it harder than the most conservative member of the Tsar's court.

Well yeah, Stalin was a total monster, but I would disagree with that assessment of Lenin. Lenin was a brilliant man who truly cared about the plight of the commoners. His only problem was that he died too soon without being able to fully implement his vision. Modern capitalism largely owes its more humane approach towards economy to Lenin, because we have seen what happens when the common man gets pushed too far. As much as I dislike communism, I have to admin that Lenin was a great man who had changed the world for the better.

[Gilrandir]

If Hitler had attacked later, the ranks would have been filled again and the USSR would not have lost so much ground.

If the ranks had been filled Stalin would have attacked first.

Well yeah, Stalin was a total monster, but I would disagree with that assessment of Lenin. Lenin was a brilliant man who truly cared about the plight of the commoners. His only problem was that he died too soon without being able to fully implement his vision. Modern capitalism largely owes its more humane approach towards economy to Lenin, because we have seen what happens when the common man gets pushed too far. As much as I dislike communism, I have to admin that Lenin was a great man who had changed the world for the better.

I'm afarid you are under a delusion of a bad Stalin who perverted the ideas of good Lenin. The massacres (including those of the commoners, who started to rebel against severe economic measures imposed by him, and priests) that Lenin sanctioned don't reflect a great credit on him. I would say that being well-meaning at the outset he got into the usual practice of violence to keep the power. Far too often have we witnessed that (for more details refer to "The Lord of the Rings").

[rory_20_uk]

Lenin started the Cheka and they were up to their antics almost from the start.

Unless we use the "hard times call for hard measures", Lenin was as bad as the rest of them.

[Crandar]

If the ranks had been filled Stalin would have attacked first.

Not really, Stalin was the opposite of Trotsky, absolutely terrified by the prospect of a foreign war.

I'm afarid you are under a delusion of a bad Stalin who perverted the ideas of good Lenin. The massacres (including those of the commoners, who started to rebel against severe economic measures imposed by him, and priests) that Lenin sanctioned don't reflect a great credit on him. I would say that being well-meaning at the outset he got into the usual practice of violence to keep the power. Far too often have we witnessed that (for more details refer to "The Lord of the Rings").

You mean the Red Terror? Yeah, things usually go wrong, during civil wars, but still not even close to Okhrana's pogroms. Or Petlura's...

[Gilrandir]

Not really, Stalin was the opposite of Trotsky, absolutely terrified by the prospect of a foreign war.

And that is why Stalin invaded Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, China... Or was it Trotsky (who since 1928 lived abroad) that directed this policy?

You mean the Red Terror? Yeah, things usually go wrong, during civil wars

And that is the excuse for a nice guy Lenin is thought to be?

[Idaho]

Can a mod move the off topic discussion of the Soviet union to its own thread?

[Idaho]

People talk about the industrialisation of Soviet States whilst neglecting the fact that this industrialisation, as rapid as it was, did not translate into comparably improved living standards vs the West. Put simply, Soviet industrialisation was done poorly and with less care or basic humanity even than the industrialisation that produce Britain's "Satanic Mills".

In fact, I would argue that Industrialisation of Soviet States was inevitable and was probably as likely under the Tsar as Stalin, and the Tsar was a far more relaxed and benevolent ruler - which is really saying something.

The first paragraph is marvelously ahistorical. British industrialisation was built on the foundation of empire, conquest, slavery and brutal urbanisation over the space of 100 years or more.

Russian industrialisation was inevitable? I have no idea how you could substantiate that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The first paragraph is marvelously ahistorical. British industrialisation was built on the foundation of empire, conquest, slavery and brutal urbanisation over the space of 100 years or more.

Um, no.

Industrialisation came before the Empire, really, it allowed the mass-production of weapons, notably muskets and cannon, that facilitated Imperial Expansion, the Empire then used their industrialised military capacity to subdue new territories in order to sell them good produced in Britain's factories.

Blake made reference to the "Satanic Mills" in the first decade of the 19th Century, before the British Empire as we usually imagine it really got going.

One should note, in fact, that slavery had relatively little to do with British Industrialisation, which began with steam engines hauling coal and pumping out mines. In so far as slavery made a contribution it would be in providing raw cotton.

Also, the term "brutal urbanisation" is miss-leading because it implies that people were rounded up and forced to work in factories, when in fact it was economic change that pulled people towards cities looking for work.

Like Brenus you seem to skip over the nuances in my posts though -

"Put simply, Soviet industrialisation was done poorly and with less care or basic humanity even than the industrialisation that produce Britain's "Satanic Mills"."

Get it?

British Industrialisation produced what were considered, at the time, to be "Satanic Mills" and Russian industrialisation was still worse.

Why?

Well, because British Industrialisation was not conducted according to a deliberate government "five year plan" that quite literally put people through mills and saw them as nothing more than input to generate output despite the very same government claiming to be Socialist. There were no objections from the middle class or intelligentsia because they were purged and there were no benevolent factory owners because religion was effectively banned and everything was run by the state.

So, despite the government being run by allegedly intelligent people and allegedly for the masses of the downtrodden they managed to outdo Britain's Industrial "race to the bottom" and in half the time, to boot.

In Britain the brutality of Industrialisation was the result of greedy and grasping individuals and was mitigated by more benevolent industrialists, notably Quakers and Methodists. In Russia brutality was a matter od State policy - and it reached heights not seen under the Tsar.

Russian industrialisation was inevitable? I have no idea how you could substantiate that.

Industrialisation had already begun - it is part of what caused the revolution. Industrial workers were the foundation of the Soviets.

[Greyblades]

The first paragraph is marvelously ahistorical. British industrialisation was built on the foundation of empire, conquest, slavery and brutal urbanisation over the space of 100 years or more.

There's nothing more predictable than a self-hating Englishman.

[Crandar]

And that is why Stalin invaded Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, China... Or was it Trotsky (who since 1928 lived abroad) that directed this policy?

I should have said that he was terrified by the prospect of a war against a state that mattered politically and diplomatically.

And that is the excuse for a nice guy Lenin is thought to be?

No, but it helps us to evaluate him under the specific circumstances, as he compared Nicholas' peaceful rule with military operations. To use my previous reference, it wouldn't be very just to evaluate the morality of the Ukrainian Independence Movement by its actions in the Denikin Front, would it be? Because Ukrainian nationalists would make Hitler blush.

Um, no.

Industrialisation came before the Empire, really, it allowed the mass-production of weapons, notably muskets and cannon, that facilitated Imperial Expansion, the Empire then used their industrialised military capacity to subdue new territories in order to sell them good produced in Britain's factories.

If that's how you interpret the term of industrialisation, then Russia, with her mass production of weapons, was already completely industrialised, long before the revolution.
But that's a weird way of defining industrialisation, we usually prefer the importance of industry in relation with the rest of financial activities.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If that's how you interpret the term of industrialisation, then Russia, with her mass production of weapons, was already completely industrialised, long before the revolution.
But that's a weird way of defining industrialisation, we usually prefer the importance of industry in relation with the rest of financial activities.

Well, there's "Industrialisation" where you have moved from a craft economy to mass-production and there's the Urbanisation that comes along with it. In the UK Urbanisation really kicks in between the World Wars but by that point a lot of what we used in day-to-day life was mass-produced.

By the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II Russia already had significant industrial capacity but many things were still made by hand.

The Soviets moved everything to pass production, with often disastrous results. The Destruction of the Ural Sea being the most obvious example - the lack of a Liberal Elite means a lack of sentiment.

[Husar]

self-hating Englishman.

That's what fascists call it when someone merely acknowledges the faults of his forefathers.

[Greyblades]

If by "acknowledge" you mean "is incapable of seeing anything other than".

[rvg]

The Soviets moved everything to pass production, with often disastrous results. The Destruction of the Ural Sea being the most obvious example - the lack of a Liberal Elite means a lack of sentiment.

*cough*Aral*cough*. Oh, and it was still okay by the end of 1991. The catastrophy came after 1994 or so, once the local khans, I mean presidents, decided to drain the two rivers that the Aral Sea to the point that the rivers no longer reached the lake.

[Brenus]

"In Britain the brutality of Industrialisation was the result of greedy and grasping individuals and was mitigated by more benevolent industrialists, notably Quakers and Methodists. In Russia brutality was a matter od State policy - and it reached heights not seen under the Tsar." Yeah, sure see Irish Famine and Indian Famines, every benevolent, they were. Now if you really want to speak about nice benevolent capitalist exploitation, you have to refer to the Belgium Congo.

Nice Czar:
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1994-5/Lilly.htm
First sentence: "Famine is one of the worst, if not the worst of the disasters that afflict humankind" in The Russian Famine of 1891-92. Who was the Czar? Alexander III, with his son as helper to the help effort... With a helper so much benevolent.

Ural Sea: Aral. Aral See. Ecological disaster, can be compare to the Dust Bowl in USA in term of absolute ecological disaster.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...mpletely-dried

[Husar]

If by "acknowledge" you mean "is incapable of seeing anything other than".

How would you know that?
Or are you just incapable of seeing anything else?

[Greyblades]

¿Que?

[Sarmatian]

And that is why Stalin invaded Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, China... Or was it Trotsky (who since 1928 lived abroad) that directed this policy?

There was a world war in preparation. Britain planned to invade Norway (even before German invasion) and then Sweden, to deprive Germany of Swedish ore. Niceties in general go out the window in those cases.

And there's the always popular good ole empire building. USA in South America and Asia, Japan in Asia, Soviets in Europe and Asia, Italy in Africa, Germany in Europe and Africa, China in Asia sometime later and so on... Doesn't really prove that Stalin was an evil warmonger anymore than, let's say, Roosevelt was.

Um, no.

Industrialisation came before the Empire, really, it allowed the mass-production of weapons, notably muskets and cannon, that facilitated Imperial Expansion, the Empire then used their industrialised military capacity to subdue new territories in order to sell them good produced in Britain's factories.

Not Empire, just empire. Even though British Empire refers usually to a specific time period, British imperialism is much older. Colonies in the America and elsewhere, served similar purpose even though they predate the period of British Empire. Queen Victoria didn't have to be crowned Empress of India for that to be in effect. Huge population density in several urban centers, cheap raw material and a rather big market forced to buy British industrial products - those factors were in effect already. Thinking they had absolutely no effect on industrialization is laughable really.

Also, the term "brutal urbanisation" is miss-leading because it implies that people were rounded up and forced to work in factories, when in fact it was economic change that pulled people towards cities looking for work.

That's why there was mass poverty in London in the mid 19th century? 16 hour work days? Child labour? They weren't forced at gun point, no, but as the economic paradigm of the world changed, they were forced to move to cities to look for work.

Well, because British Industrialisation was not conducted according to a deliberate government "five year plan" that quite literally put people through mills and saw them as nothing more than input to generate output despite the very same government claiming to be Socialist. There were no objections from the middle class or intelligentsia because they were purged and there were no benevolent factory owners because religion was effectively banned and everything was run by the state.

Bollocks. There were only traces of the middle class in Russia in those years. Middle class was created during Soviet times, and religion never stopped factory owners to overwork their employees and use children.

So, despite the government being run by allegedly intelligent people and allegedly for the masses of the downtrodden they managed to outdo Britain's Industrial "race to the bottom" and in half the time, to boot.

In Britain the brutality of Industrialisation was the result of greedy and grasping individuals and was mitigated by more benevolent industrialists, notably Quakers and Methodists. In Russia brutality was a matter od State policy - and it reached heights not seen under the Tsar.

Again, bollocks.

First off, it took decades for Britain and other western countries to industrialize. SU did it in 5-10 years. Brutal, but effective.

And it is not just a matter of factory building. The modern society was created in a very short time. Basically everything was built, and all over the country, not just Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev. It was basically building a modern country from scratch. It's not just building 10 factories that were gonna build a 100 hospitals. You have to have staff for those hospital and there weren't nearly enough. So, you have to educate them, but you don't have enough universities. So you have to build universities and learning centers. You have to build them all over the country, so you need a railroad network. After that is in place, you need a road network, for civilian travel and other transports. That's not always practical and of course you need to import and export stuff, so you need ports and airports in addition to roads and railroads. Now there are issues with raw materials, so you need to expand existing mines and create new ones. More railroads connecting them to cities, but it goes slowly as the very materials you need to build railroad are extracted in the Urals, and they can't be transported quickly and cheaply because, get this, there are no railroads. And to power it all, you need a huge amount of energy. Coal, oil, electricity...
Then you have to reorganize agriculture as you need to feed all those people who are leaving their farms, and, of course, houses and apartments for them to live in.

All that with keeping up in military stuff, as the world war is looming.

After communists consolidated power in the early thirties, Soviet Union was basically a feudal country in everything but name. Just 30 years after, in the 1960, it was a fully industrialized modern country.

You can choose a parameter at random, not just industrial production, but any parameter, like literacy rate, university education, infant mortality rate... Really anything. You'd find a massive improvement in every single one. In the span of 30 years, a single generation, the entire country was transformed. With all the destruction suffered in the war.

The effectiveness of it all can not be over emphasized, really. Neither can the brutality, really, but the results were there for all to see.

Industrialisation had already begun - it is part of what caused the revolution. Industrial workers were the foundation of the Soviets.

No. Communists were aware that there weren't enough of them, so they included the farmers, which weren't give much attention in the communist theories so far. That's why there was that sickle in the flag.

[Brenus]

No. Communists were aware that there weren't enough of them, so they included the farmers, which weren't give much attention in the communist theories so far. That's why there was that sickle in the flag.

Yeap. Marx thought the Revolution would start in Germany. And in fact, the 2 main successful "communist" revolutions started in Russia and China, both countries hardly industrialised at the time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

the 2 main successful "communist" revolutions started in Russia and China, both countries hardly industrialised at the time.

That's why they failed obviously.

[Gilrandir]

It surprises many individuals to learn that the Soviet domestic economy operated mostly in kind rather than coin, in exchange of favors and services.

It surprises me to hear it, me who have lived for twenty years in the Soviet Union. If there was exchange of services on a barter basis (like moving furniture for a bottle of vodka) that was certainly NOT the modus opreandi of the ECONOMY as a whole.

I should have said that he was terrified by the prospect of a war against a state that mattered politically and diplomatically.

All of those wars were preceded by political and diplomatic manouvers, which testifies to the fact that they DID matter bothwise. Still more so if we consider all of those "small invasions" taken together.

To use my previous reference, it wouldn't be very just to evaluate the morality of the Ukrainian Independence Movement by its actions in the Denikin Front, would it be? Because Ukrainian nationalists would make Hitler blush.

So you claim that Hitler killed less people than Ukrainian independence zealots in 1917-1920 and that the latter were notorious for creating KZ-lagers and gas chambers and medical tests on children? Then you evidently have reliable sources of information to prove your point.

*cough*Aral*cough*. Oh, and it was still okay by the end of 1991. The catastrophy came after 1994 or so, once the local khans, I mean presidents, decided to drain the two rivers that the Aral Sea to the point that the rivers no longer reached the lake.

Sometimes, humans and regimes have nothing (or little) to do with natural disasters. Like Kara Bogaz Gol lagoon - its level fluctuates with the level of the Caspian Sea, so sometimes it can go almost completely dry and then fill with water again. The Soviets interfered with the process building a dam to stop the advance of water from the Sea, yet in some years the rise of water level destroyed the dam and both basins are now in the natural state.

Although, with the Aral Sea it was definitely not the case.

There was a world war in preparation. Britain planned to invade Norway (even before German invasion) and then Sweden, to deprive Germany of Swedish ore. Niceties in general go out the window in those cases.

And there's the always popular good ole empire building. USA in South America and Asia, Japan in Asia, Soviets in Europe and Asia, Italy in Africa, Germany in Europe and Africa, China in Asia sometime later and so on... Doesn't really prove that Stalin was an evil warmonger anymore than, let's say, Roosevelt was.

It doesn't matter how we qualify the invader - a war monger or an empire builder. Invader he stays.
Moreover, planning and doing are two different things. Stalin planned AND acted while others just planned.

[Montmorency]

It surprises me to hear it, me who have lived for twenty years in the Soviet Union. If there was exchange of services on a barter basis (like moving furniture for a bottle of vodka) that was certainly NOT the modus opreandi of the ECONOMY as a whole.

What I said is entirely correct. The internal Soviet economy below the level of Gosplan and inter-republic balancing was extremely underdeveloped in terms of the role of monetary currency.

Also, do not confuse "in kind" with "informal".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sarmation - I'm not arguing with your characterisation of Soviet Industrialisation - what I'm saying is that they could have done it in 20 years without destroying Russia's soul. Having said that, I suspect that was the point - Communists don't like anything but Marxism and hard figures.

As far as a pre-existing Russian middle clas, it was developing and so was industrialisation but Russia had developed an "upside down" middle class where the lesser sons of minor nobility went to university, studied, and joined the professions. This contrasts sharply with the traditional Western European model where professionals were the sons of wealthy merchants or non-noble farmers.

As far as Britain goes - I didn't say colonialism had nothing to do with it, far from it, I said that the foundations of British industrialisation were internal to Britain, they had their roots in mining and not in industrial production of goods, that came later and it did indeed feed off Empire, but it also drove it as British merchants sought new markets for their goods and new sources of raw materials.

The interrelationship between trade, political Empire and British industrialisation was very complex, but Idaho would almost like you to believe that we used black slaves to haul the coal that powered the engines and Indians to make the cloth on our mass-looms.

In reality we only really used slaves to grow cotton and sugar, and we broke the thumbs of all the Indians so they couldn't weave and compete with our mass-produced product.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It surprises me to hear it, me who have lived for twenty years in the Soviet Union. If there was exchange of services on a barter basis (like moving furniture for a bottle of vodka) that was certainly NOT the modus opreandi of the ECONOMY as a whole.

He's essentially describing Soviet corruption, which was endemic, and the fact that to get anything done you often had to do a favour for someone else, or pay a bribe which might be a "gift" in kind.

All of which goes back to the fact that the "cover" price" of anything in Soviet Russia was less than it actually cost economically.

[Husar]

In reality we only really used slaves to grow cotton and sugar, and we broke the thumbs of all the Indians so they couldn't weave and compete with our mass-produced product.

And we "only" gassed the communists and other troublemakers for national security.
It's fun to explain why things weren't evil.

[CrossLOPER]

First we had the steel beams/jet fuel thread, then the Author of the universe, then Shiara democracy, now we have a thread about Victorian industrialization and Tsardom being "pretty good".

Guys, this place is a stone's throw away from 4chan's /news/ before it was scuttled. Ease it up.

[Idaho]

Um, no.

Industrialisation came before the Empire, really, it allowed the mass-production of weapons, notably muskets and cannon, that facilitated Imperial Expansion, the Empire then used their industrialised military capacity to subdue new territories in order to sell them good produced in Britain's factories.

The mercantile era, the colonisation of America, the triangle trade, etc were all pre-requisites for the British industrial revolution. It doesn't matter how much coal you have, how many navigable rivers, how many clever engineers you have. If we didn't have a supply of raw materials, large amounts of investment capital and ready access to foreign markets, we would have had no industrial revolution.

You are thinking of empire in very formal Victorian terms. But the American colonies, the Caribbean, the British East India company, the Asiento trade of west Africa - these all predate industrialisation by a hundred years or more.

[Gilrandir]

What I said is entirely correct. The internal Soviet economy below the level of Gosplan and inter-republic balancing was extremely underdeveloped in terms of the role of monetary currency.

Also, do not confuse "in kind" with "informal".

You claim to be true what you (unlike me) didn't experience personally. Money ran EVERYWHERE and it was as ubiquitous as it is now in any Western (or other) country.

He's essentially describing Soviet corruption, which was endemic, and the fact that to get anything done you often had to do a favour for someone else, or pay a bribe which might be a "gift" in kind.

All of which goes back to the fact that the "cover" price" of anything in Soviet Russia was less than it actually cost economically.

Corruption =/= underdeveloped monetary system.

[Montmorency]

You claim to be true what you (unlike me) didn't experience personally. Money ran EVERYWHERE and it was as ubiquitous as it is now in any Western (or other) country.

Your personal experience seems to be 'money existed, therefore it was the dominant form of exchange'. If only you were as quick to check your own personal experiences as you are with those of others.

[Gilrandir]

Your personal experience seems to be 'money existed, therefore it was the dominant form of exchange'. If only you were as quick to check your own personal experiences as you are with those of others.

If you have a similar experience be my guest and share it. But what I see is you confidently speaking of things you can know as a heresay denying my experience and showing no proof of your claims.