It is a judgement-based claim of a person who is as much competent in the War in question as in the differences between a language and a dialect.
Neither this nor "confiscation of the land by the king" is a cause. A marxist like you claim you are should know the difference between a cause and a pretext (aka casus belli). Otherwise you would say that the cause of WWI was the Sarajevo assassination.
In this case the judge is the owner of EVERYTHING since he can take anything from a person by the court's decision. The ability to decide doesn't make anyone the owner (unless he proclaims the estates his property after the decision).
I didn't see anything in Britannica that is contrary to what I said. Unless it is the conclusion on how viable the Mir was. And I based my judgement (besides the previous knowlege) on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina
in which:
The institution was effectively destroyed by the Stolypin agrarian reforms (1906–1914), the Russian Revolution and subsequent collectivization of the USSR.
I'm glad you admit it. Yet if I said something like "partially accurate" about my claims, I would earn a ton of contempt (and a hundredweight of insults) from you, now wouldn't I?
Bookmarks