Party in the USSR

[InsaneApache]

He's got Seumas Milne as his spin doctor!

Oh my giddy aunt. Labour, the gift that keeps on giving!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...apologist.html

[Idaho]

I read that angry drivel, for my sins.

“communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality.” And besides, the Soviet bloc “encompassed genuine idealism and commitment”

Er.. And? That's all demonstrably true. The Soviet system wasn't some factory of evil thought control and violence. It had those two features, but fundamentally it was a successful attempt to turn an illiterate feudal country into a modern industrial one. No serious historian would contest this - only political dilettantes with little historical education - enter your man.

[InsaneApache]

I read that angry drivel, for my sins.



Er.. And? That's all demonstrably true. The Soviet system wasn't some factory of evil thought control and violence. It had those two features, but fundamentally it was a successful attempt to turn an illiterate feudal country into a modern industrial one. No serious historian would contest this - only political dilettantes with little historical education - enter your man.

Now you're just trolling you naughty boy!

[Montmorency]

communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality.

I guess the main complaint would be 'Er, so what?' You might as well say the same about capitalism. The post-Stalin USSR was not a hellhole or Evil Empire, but it is quite right to criticize such strident nostalgia.

And besides, the Soviet bloc “encompassed genuine idealism and commitment”

Lol what?

it was also a country of full employment, social equality, cheap housing, transport and culture, one of the best childcare systems in the world, and greater freedom in the workplace than most employees enjoy in today’s Germany.”

"Full" employment was achieved through the criminalization of unemployment, and served primarily as a tool for organizing and tracking the population while at the same time maintaining networks of patronage in a feudal-like system. Individual variation in globally-defined net worth may have been very low, but this ignores the vast inequality that existed in terms of privilege and prestige. It surprises many individuals to learn that the Soviet domestic economy operated mostly in kind rather than coin, in exchange of favors and services. Indeed, to speak of social equality in the Soviet Union while criticizing the West's lack thereof is just silly.

Housing: Always atrocious in terms of both space and utilities, but there were some bright spots in the various attempts at reform (particularly in the Khruschev era).

Transport: Fairly good, but as usual for industrial countries the emphasis was on expediting long-range travel of goods, commodities, equipment, and military units. And even then, Soviet road infrastructure was notoriously-bad throughout the century, and the capacities for rail and air transport of civilian passengers were limited.

Culture: Culture (not in the sociological but the classic sense) has always been a point of both pride and sensitivity for Russians, but it's not exactly relevant to - wait, what exactly is the question anyway?

Childcare: There were always places to drop off young kids while you went to work, I'll grant him that.

Freedom in the workplace: Hard to even respond to this one as it's not clear what this is supposed to mean or refer to.


Just seems like another contrarian pinko, peevishly detracting his own society and blindly celebrating whatever alternatives he can latch onto without giving consideration to what his own principles are or should be, and how to accordingly compare various system by them.

[Montmorency]

As for comparisons to Islamist Iran, well, it's no surprise that the language of shame and blame and sin carries over quite well.

As the 1980 Moscow Olympics approached, a Soviet official was asked whether his country would host that year’s Paralympics for the first time.

“There are no invalids in the U.S.S.R.!” he thundered back, a phrase that went down in history.

[Idaho]

Russia, in 30 years, went from being a country of illiterate peasants and feudal lords, with a thoroughly pre modern concept of time, law, manufacturing, etc. To a country that defeated the greatest military power of the age (Germany) and was the first to send an astronaut to space.

I would be the first to list the downsides, drawbacks, tyranny and lunacy of the Soviet system. But credit where credits due.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Russia, in 30 years, went from being a country of illiterate peasants and feudal lords, with a thoroughly pre modern concept of time, law, manufacturing, etc. To a country that defeated the greatest military power of the age (Germany) and was the first to send an astronaut to space.

I would be the first to list the downsides, drawbacks, tyranny and lunacy of the Soviet system. But credit where credits due.

How about:

recently praised “the innate humanity of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s legacy.” Since 1959, the rancid dictatorship in Cuba has consistently forgotten to hold free elections, but don’t allow ideas of democratic pluralism to undermine “the historical importance of Cuba’s struggle for social justice and sovereignty and its creative social mobilisation [which] will continue to echo beyond its time and place.”

He's a Communist Apologist, of the type which was prevalent on the Left in the 60's and 70's.

[Husar]

It all sound to me like communism had an great and strong initial push but later began to stall in terms of development.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It all sound to me like communism had an great and strong initial push but later began to stall in terms of development.

Except it really wasn't - the Communist project started with the Bolsheviks overthrowing Russia's first elected government and murdering the Tsar and his family, including his daughters who were so far down the line of succession due to Salic Law that killing them was basically just vindictive.

Fruit of the poisoned tree.

[Greyblades]

It all sound to me like communism had an great and strong initial push but later began to stall in terms of development.

Didnt it take 20 years for the USSR to get its gear together? China didnt do too well either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Didnt it take 20 years for the USSR to get its gear together? China didnt do too well either.

My understanding was that the USSR was strong relatively quick after the revolution, until Stalin purged the ranks in the late 30s. That purge removed most of the leadership Stalin needed to fend off Hitler a few years later. If Hitler had attacked later, the ranks would have been filled again and the USSR would not have lost so much ground.

I don't know anything about China except that Mao was just totally incompetent.

[InsaneApache]

Russia, in 30 years, went from being a country of illiterate peasants and feudal lords, with a thoroughly pre modern concept of time, law, manufacturing, etc. To a country that defeated the greatest military power of the age (Germany) and was the first to send an astronaut to space.

I would be the first to list the downsides, drawbacks, tyranny and lunacy of the Soviet system. But credit where credits due.

There, in a nutshell, you have the leftist point of view. No matter how many people die for the 'greater good' it's the end of those meanie capitalists that counts!

....that they have the absolute gall to accuse the rest of us 'lumpen-proletariat' of having a false conscientious is breathtaking with it's hubris.

[Papewaio]

So no one has died for the greater good in Capitalism?

Each system has a cost/benefit associated with it and all of them are abused by the ruling class.

[Husar]

There, in a nutshell, you have the leftist point of view. No matter how many people die for the 'greater good' it's the end of those meanie capitalists that counts!

That's not what he said. He said despite the numerous downsides it also did a few things right, that's completely different from saying the ends justify the means.

[Brenus]

Don't argue. It perfectly acceptable to negotiate with murderers regimes and dictators when it is about money. We welcome the Chinese in UK now, thanks not to the horrible letfist Corbin but the nice righteous D. Cameron.
And Pinochet was a personal friend of Thatcher.

[Idaho]

How about:

recently praised “the innate humanity of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s legacy.” Since 1959, the rancid dictatorship in Cuba has consistently forgotten to hold free elections, but don’t allow ideas of democratic pluralism to undermine “the historical importance of Cuba’s struggle for social justice and sovereignty and its creative social mobilisation [which] will continue to echo beyond its time and place.”

He's a Communist Apologist, of the type which was prevalent on the Left in the 60's and 70's.

It's an endless fascination to me that those on the right spend so much time digging through opinion pieces or speeches for such paltry evidence - while simultaneously ignoring the ACTUAL deals and actions of right wing politicians. The propping up and arming of Saddam, Pinochet, etc. The pushing of a militaristic foreign policy that kills millions in order to fund their arms dealer backers (Mark Thatcher for goodness sake!)

It's like comparing murderers and thieves with people who muse aloud awkwardly about abstract concepts.

[Beskar]

It's like comparing murderers and thieves with people who muse aloud awkwardly about abstract concepts.

You forget, it is their murderers and thieves, not that smelly lefty!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's an endless fascination to me that those on the right spend so much time digging through opinion pieces or speeches for such paltry evidence - while simultaneously ignoring the ACTUAL deals and actions of right wing politicians. The propping up and arming of Saddam, Pinochet, etc. The pushing of a militaristic foreign policy that kills millions in order to fund their arms dealer backers (Mark Thatcher for goodness sake!)

It's like comparing murderers and thieves with people who muse aloud awkwardly about abstract concepts.

That was easy to find, it required almost no effort, I merely skimmed the piece.

I find your selective memory disappointing.

Please, go back through the forum and read me on Thatcher and the Falklands War (largely her fault) or Thatcher and the North (cure that killed the patient) or Thatcher and society (responsible for much of our modern malaise).

Aside from that, one should note that there is a profound difference between working with Tyrants during the paranoia of the Cold War and praising some of the 20th Century's greatest monsters today.

[Sarmatian]

Aside from that, one should note that there is a profound difference between working with Tyrants during the paranoia of the Cold War and praising some of the 20th Century's greatest monsters today.

And yet you subscribe to the narrative set up during the paranoia of the Cold War.

[Crandar]

Except it really wasn't - the Communist project started with the Bolsheviks overthrowing Russia's first elected government and murdering the Tsar and his family, including his daughters who were so far down the line of succession due to Salic Law that killing them was basically just vindictive.

Fruit of the poisoned tree.

As the examples of Catherine and Elizabeth indicate, the girls were perfectly acceptable candidates to the throne. If they were permitted to live, then the Kolchak would turn them into a symbol of his struggle against the Soviets. Killing them was a politically necessary move. Also, Kerenski government was not elected, but on the contrary, they insisted on refusing to hold elections, until the revolution finally overthrew them.

Since 1959, the rancid dictatorship in Cuba has consistently forgotten to hold free elections, but don’t allow ideas of democratic pluralism to undermine “the historical importance of Cuba’s struggle for social justice and sovereignty and its creative social mobilisation [which] will continue to echo beyond its time and place.”

Well, it was a step forward, compared to Fulgencio and his gang of pimps.

[Brenus]

Well, it was a step forward, compared to Fulgencio and his gang of pimps.

What? It was not a blooming democracy before Castro?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet you subscribe to the narrative set up during the paranoia of the Cold War.

Would you care to elaborate?

[Sarmatian]

Would you care to elaborate?

That particular narrative comes mostly from a period of Red Scare. It has been thoroughly debunked in the last few decades.

People mentioned massive industrialization and modernisation of eastern European countries during communism. That is a fact. Mentioning it doesn't mean people aren't aware of lack of civil liberties and human rights abuses during communism, which are also facts.

You ignored that and entered into a McCarthy mode and screamed OMG MONSTER PRAISING!!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That particular narrative comes mostly from a period of Red Scare. It has been thoroughly debunked in the last few decades.

People mentioned massive industrialization and modernisation of eastern European countries during communism. That is a fact. Mentioning it doesn't mean people aren't aware of lack of civil liberties and human rights abuses during communism, which are also facts.

You ignored that and entered into a McCarthy mode and screamed OMG MONSTER PRAISING!!!

Not really, anyone who talks of the "humanity" of Fidel Castro or "workers' rights" in Soviet Russia is engaging in revisionism.

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.

[Brenus]

"Tsar was a far more relaxed and benevolent ruler" Really? You should read a little bit of history books... If so, why a Revolution? he was a bloody dictator, selfish leech, stupid and incompetent ruler.
I suggest you check what autocrat means as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Tsar was a far more relaxed and benevolent ruler" Really? You should read a little bit of history books... If so, why a Revolution? he was a bloody dictator, selfish leech, stupid and incompetent ruler.
I suggest you check what autocrat means as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

You think the Tsar ordered the Imperial Guard to fire?

No - if you read your own wikipedia link you would know that the ultimate cause of the massacre was poor Russian disciple and a lack of central command and control.

I think the Tsar was a fool lacking all the skills necessary of an Autocrat, but I do not think he was bloodthirsty or any more selfish than anyone else.

In fact, if you look at the 1905 revolution, you can see he was very pliable and inclined to give concessions - he tried to establish an inquiry into the discontent in St Petersberg but it fell apart when the Socialists prevented the working class from participating.

Russia was inching towards reform in 1905 and had it now been for the Russian Revolution I think it's likely that the reforms would have progressed and within 20 years Russia would have caught up with much of the West. Remember that the Tsars were westward looking, they had family in Scandinavia and England as well as Germany and the natural inclination of the £Great Houses of Europe" during this period was to look at who was doing well and copy them.

So Nicki looks as cousin George in Britain, who is generally popular and has a huge Empire and comes to the conclusion that "democracy" is working for him and might be worth trying in Russia. Hence the Constitution of 1906, and had that not been repeatedly undermined by both the aristocracy and the communists I imagine there would have been further reform.

The Tsar was by no means a "Good King" but he was not a rabid monster, that was Lenin, and he was not a cold blooded autocrat, that was Stalin.

[Crandar]

Dunno man, regularly instigating pogroms sounds pretty evil.

Not to mention that the regime was as despotic as it used to be before 1905, with the Duma not having any actual political role. However, there was indeed a movement towards a more progressive governing way, which found its expression on the revolutions of February and October.

If you insist on whitewashing the Czar, please consider that the restoration of the imperial regime was never advocated by Kolchak, Denikin and the Black Baron. The Romanovs that much despised. Only some green peasant armies cried some embarrassing slogans in favour of the monarchy, the most known being that of the Siberian rebels against the Admiral:

"Down with Kolchak, fight for Grand Duke Nicolaus Nikolayevitch and his appointed ministers, Lenin and Trotzky!"

Hmmm...

[Brenus]

"The Tsar was by no means a "Good King" but he was not a rabid monster, that was Lenin, and he was not a cold blooded autocrat, that was Stalin." See Crandar's answer.
Your benevolent Tsar just went in two war he lost just to keep power.
The reform in 1905 were forced on him, and he did all want he could to take them back. He was a bloody, selfish autocrat.

I even can't imagine why you trying to tell differently.

[Greyblades]

Dunno man, regularly instigating pogroms sounds pretty evil.

Instigating? What bunk have you been reading?

The pogroms are generally thought to have been either organized or at least condoned by the authorities.[19][20][21][22][23] This view was challenged by Hans Rogger, I. Michael Aronson and John Klier, who couldn't find such sanctions documented in the state archives.[24][25] However, the antisemitic policy that was carried out from 1881 to 1917 made them possible. Official persecution and harassment of Jews influenced numerous antisemites to presume that their violence was legitimate, and this sentiment was reinforced by the active participation of a few high and many minor officials in fomenting attacks, as well as by the reluctance of the government to stop pogroms and to punish those responsible for them.

Wikipedia

The worst thing nicolas did personally against the jews was:

in private Nicholas expressed his admiration for the mobs, viewing anti-Semitism as a useful tool for unifying the people behind his regime

Which at the time was practically to be expected from all but the most moral statesmen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"The Tsar was by no means a "Good King" but he was not a rabid monster, that was Lenin, and he was not a cold blooded autocrat, that was Stalin." See Crandar's answer.
Your benevolent Tsar just went in two war he lost just to keep power.
The reform in 1905 were forced on him, and he did all want he could to take them back. He was a bloody, selfish autocrat.

I even can't imagine why you trying to tell differently.

Perhaps you should read my original comment again.

"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."

As you're incapable of textual analysis please - allow me to be explicit.

The Tsar was a terrible ruler, terrible things were allowed to happen under his autocracy. However, he was still more "relaxed and benevolent" than Stalin. 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.