Throughout the world at this time it was not uncommon for women to have no rights to own property in their own name. Even widows could be left destitute and the property of the husband up for grabs since the widow had no right to it. Even before marriage any property was owned by the father.
Even in America the reality of property rights for women varied from state to state. For example in Florida until the 1970s a woman that wanted to control her own property had to petition the state for legal recognition that she could do so.
http://www.h-net.org/~women/threads/disc-property.html
Serfs were freed in Russia in 1861 though economic reality probably meant it made little difference. Economic slavery is slavery by another name perhaps bit it was not confined to russia or the kulaks. When the 1906 land reforms led to the creation of the kulaks agricultural production went up. Stalin classified them as class enemies and set out to destroy them effectively putting production back to where it had been. Portraying them all as exploitative moneygrubbing chancers is not really the whole story. There's a bit more to it than that.
You seem to be fascinated by this particular aspect of the Russian revolution. Mind if I ask if there's any particular reason?
The way the russian revolution eventually went owes much to the character of stalin and could have turned out very much differently IMO. Even lenin realised he was the wrong man to take over from him except too late to do anything about it. This wasn't some inevitable tide of change that was sweeping russia, all it would have taken to stop the bolshevik revolution in 1917 was one regiment prepared to defend the Kerensky government. (can't for the life of me find a link but lenin says this somewhere in his letters) Communism is like a religion in that it's followers can get so hung up on what is in the book they forget the point of it all. Talking to a diehard revolutionary socialist is like talking to a fundamentalist christian
Have you ever looked into what was happening elsewhere while all this was going on? As the years pass you can see the realisation and disappointment growing that the revolution in Russia was a sham and all Stalin had achieved was a totalitarian government and that is where the dictatorship of the proletariat would always end up. Ironically it ws only the middle class intellectual left that hung on to the fantasy. There are plenty of letters and articles to be found. Ultimately there was never a communist revolution in any of the countries marx thought it to be inevitable-the industrialised ones- for the simple reason that an educated workforce saw straight through to the basic flaw that you would swop one set of masters for another.
Why not off the Kulaks?
Why not off the Kulaks?
posted by scrat
I'm so fascinated by this because there is such a disparity of accuracy on the subject. There is a lot written on it in the west and the east and not a lot of truth on either side.
If you pick through the bones of it you can get an idea of what was going on. Although it's better to look yourself at what was said than someone elses interpretation since the interpreter often has their own agenda. . Being scots and from the central belt I had grandparents and others of that generation that had personal memories of red clydeside and all the doings of the time. I had one uncle that remember seeing the tanks in glasgow at the saltmarket as a wee boy.
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/redcly025.htm
hard to imagine nowadays what it must have been like living in those times.
There's endless sources there were a lot of socialists from other countries visiting ans writing reports and comments. It's obviously a major interest in europe-don't know how much source material there is in the US. I kind of have the impression that not a lot of objective study material is available although I very much hope that is a wrong impression.
Don't have time to dig out many links but try these
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/russia/index.html
http://intute.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?t ... in&limit=0
I find these guys fascinating because the debate still rages on today in one form or another across the world.
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glo ... ebates.htm
“...for really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under...â€
Extract from Colonel Rainsborough's famous appeal for democratic rights for all men.
“...I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and in determining or choosing those that shall determine what laws we shall be ruled by here — no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom...â€
Extract from Henry Ireton's response to Rainsborough.
The levellers are often claimed as being amongst the first socialists-mind you Adam smith played a part as well:sneaky:
I'm so fascinated by this because there is such a disparity of accuracy on the subject. There is a lot written on it in the west and the east and not a lot of truth on either side.
If you pick through the bones of it you can get an idea of what was going on. Although it's better to look yourself at what was said than someone elses interpretation since the interpreter often has their own agenda. . Being scots and from the central belt I had grandparents and others of that generation that had personal memories of red clydeside and all the doings of the time. I had one uncle that remember seeing the tanks in glasgow at the saltmarket as a wee boy.
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/redcly025.htm
hard to imagine nowadays what it must have been like living in those times.
There's endless sources there were a lot of socialists from other countries visiting ans writing reports and comments. It's obviously a major interest in europe-don't know how much source material there is in the US. I kind of have the impression that not a lot of objective study material is available although I very much hope that is a wrong impression.
Don't have time to dig out many links but try these
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/russia/index.html
http://intute.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?t ... in&limit=0
I find these guys fascinating because the debate still rages on today in one form or another across the world.
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glo ... ebates.htm
“...for really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under...â€
Extract from Colonel Rainsborough's famous appeal for democratic rights for all men.
“...I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and in determining or choosing those that shall determine what laws we shall be ruled by here — no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom...â€
Extract from Henry Ireton's response to Rainsborough.
The levellers are often claimed as being amongst the first socialists-mind you Adam smith played a part as well:sneaky:
Why not off the Kulaks?
:-5:mad::-5 I hate politics! I didn't like the description of those Kulacs. I mean who were they to make decisions about who ate or not? Maybe they felt they had no power prior to this event and felt it necessary to flex their muscle so to speak. Why can't everyone be friends for gawds sake??!! Well I will bow out of this discussion now because, personally, I can't stand reading all the sordid details and wouldn't have anything reasonable to offer the discussion. I will say that people in the world need to get along better. Men especially are flippin knuckle heads!! Power is something I don't understand.Erin
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;707084 wrote:
Maybe I am a closet anarchist?
Ever look at what the communists did to the anarchists in spain? might put you off stalin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. The revolution was virtually snuffed out towards the end of the civil war, by the communist/Stalinist controlled forces who wanted to ensure that the social model adopted in the Spanish Republic would be of their own choosing whilst proving to the western neoliberal democracies that communist Russia would not sponsor social revolutions unfriendly to the established social order.
How about this lady
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg
posted by scrat
You mentioned before about the powers in the west being terrified of the socialist movement, I can see their point. I myself benefit from the little things American society gives me such as investing and from the time I first stepped out on my own the right to make my own decisions. I would not like a director making my life choices for me yet in many aspects my decisions are made for me IE - taxes. Nowhere in my life and nowhen will some form of government not be in my life.
Ever look at what was happening in the US about the same time? Social upheaval left and right wing politics are not a wholly european phenomenon. It's amazing how social events and upheaval in different countries have echoes all around the world
http://uk.geocities.com/buffygalloway/
You may walk free but only thanks to those who went before.
Palmer raid nets thousands of leftists. Washington Jan. 2, 1920
In bowling alleys and pool halls, cafes, homes and offices, leaders of local radical groups across the nation were seized today. “The Department of Justice†said Attorney General A. M Palmer, “has undertaken to tear out the radical seeds that have entangled American ideas†Nearly all the 4,000 arrested are foreign-born. By the General Intelligence Offices estimate, aliens make up 90% of the American radical movement. Immigration rules allow deportation without trial. Wary of filing criminal suits against people whose only crime may be their political convictions, the Justice Department has left native suspects to local officials. Palmer and his deputy J. Edgar Hoover promise at least 2,700 deportations will result.
2 lynchings a week and legislation fails Washington May 6, 1922
There have been more than 50 lynching’s of Negroes this year. In 30 of the cases, the Negroes were taken from the police by mobs. The most dramatic incident occurred in Kirvan, Texas, when 500 whites gathered to watch the burning of three Negroes. Meanwhile the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill failed in the Senate today following a long filibuster by Southerners. The bill, which called for the fining of law officers who allow lynchings to take place, had been passed in the House.
posted by watermark
I hate politics! I didn't like the description of those Kulacs. I mean who were they to make decisions about who ate or not? Maybe they felt they had no power prior to this event and felt it necessary to flex their muscle so to speak. Why can't everyone be friends for gawds sake??!! Well I will bow out of this discussion now because, personally, I can't stand reading all the sordid details and wouldn't have anything reasonable to offer the discussion. I will say that people in the world need to get along better. Men especially are flippin knuckle heads!! Power is something I don't understand.
Erin
Can't avoid politics, even (literally) affects the air you breathe-you'd think clean air wouldn't be a political issue but a simple question of is this pollution bad for us, yes or no (car exhausts) but it gets made in to one.
I mean who were they to make decisions about who ate or not?
who is anyone to decide that? The first time anyone asked that was probably back in the stone age a minute after people realised they could talk.
Maybe I am a closet anarchist?
Ever look at what the communists did to the anarchists in spain? might put you off stalin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. The revolution was virtually snuffed out towards the end of the civil war, by the communist/Stalinist controlled forces who wanted to ensure that the social model adopted in the Spanish Republic would be of their own choosing whilst proving to the western neoliberal democracies that communist Russia would not sponsor social revolutions unfriendly to the established social order.
How about this lady
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg
posted by scrat
You mentioned before about the powers in the west being terrified of the socialist movement, I can see their point. I myself benefit from the little things American society gives me such as investing and from the time I first stepped out on my own the right to make my own decisions. I would not like a director making my life choices for me yet in many aspects my decisions are made for me IE - taxes. Nowhere in my life and nowhen will some form of government not be in my life.
Ever look at what was happening in the US about the same time? Social upheaval left and right wing politics are not a wholly european phenomenon. It's amazing how social events and upheaval in different countries have echoes all around the world
http://uk.geocities.com/buffygalloway/
You may walk free but only thanks to those who went before.
Palmer raid nets thousands of leftists. Washington Jan. 2, 1920
In bowling alleys and pool halls, cafes, homes and offices, leaders of local radical groups across the nation were seized today. “The Department of Justice†said Attorney General A. M Palmer, “has undertaken to tear out the radical seeds that have entangled American ideas†Nearly all the 4,000 arrested are foreign-born. By the General Intelligence Offices estimate, aliens make up 90% of the American radical movement. Immigration rules allow deportation without trial. Wary of filing criminal suits against people whose only crime may be their political convictions, the Justice Department has left native suspects to local officials. Palmer and his deputy J. Edgar Hoover promise at least 2,700 deportations will result.
2 lynchings a week and legislation fails Washington May 6, 1922
There have been more than 50 lynching’s of Negroes this year. In 30 of the cases, the Negroes were taken from the police by mobs. The most dramatic incident occurred in Kirvan, Texas, when 500 whites gathered to watch the burning of three Negroes. Meanwhile the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill failed in the Senate today following a long filibuster by Southerners. The bill, which called for the fining of law officers who allow lynchings to take place, had been passed in the House.
posted by watermark
I hate politics! I didn't like the description of those Kulacs. I mean who were they to make decisions about who ate or not? Maybe they felt they had no power prior to this event and felt it necessary to flex their muscle so to speak. Why can't everyone be friends for gawds sake??!! Well I will bow out of this discussion now because, personally, I can't stand reading all the sordid details and wouldn't have anything reasonable to offer the discussion. I will say that people in the world need to get along better. Men especially are flippin knuckle heads!! Power is something I don't understand.
Erin
Can't avoid politics, even (literally) affects the air you breathe-you'd think clean air wouldn't be a political issue but a simple question of is this pollution bad for us, yes or no (car exhausts) but it gets made in to one.
I mean who were they to make decisions about who ate or not?
who is anyone to decide that? The first time anyone asked that was probably back in the stone age a minute after people realised they could talk.
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;707965 wrote: I am not free. I live in a society that has to be the most tightly controled in the world. In the history of mankind. I recently met a coworkers wife who is from Belgium and she was shocked by all of the laws we have here. As we speak me and my wife pay rent, we could own a home easily but choose not to (when I say own I mean own, not paying a mortguage to the bank and having that hammer over our head) because we don't want the responsibility of one.
Even if we owned the home outright we would still be paying taxes on it. So am I supposed to believe that I do not have an "official" telling me what to do?
If I rent a place to live I pay someone, if I own a place to live I pay someone.
What is the difference between that and socialism? Why is socialism so much worse? With socialism you won't see families out on the street, you won't have kids dying of brain infections because of a bad tooth.
They say that in a socialist society choices are made for you. Officials here tell you where you can live and how to build your home, how to drive, where you can and cannot walk, where you are permitted to stand, where you can smoke, where you can drink, what color you can paint your home, what responsibility you can take for your property, how fast you can drive, what you can drive, when you can gamble, where you can gamble and with whom you can gamble. They tell you where to shop and where to sell goods, when to sell them and regulate how those goods are acquired and sold.
Need I go on?
What is the difference?
The debate in europe has kind of moved on since the 1920's socialism means something very different here than it does in the US -or so it seems. Most political parties in europe take on board some of the main tenets of socialist ideas and are essentially social democratic in nature-particularly in healthcare also that companies need to be controlled to stop the major abuses they would get away with if they could. The idea that in a capitalist economy you don't need that kind of a control and that social responsibility gets in the way of business and companies should be free to pursue their business as they want without is a myth perpetrated by people who do know better but just like having their own way. mercantilism and capitalism are not one and the same.
try http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm although I suspect you already have. The sight of Alan Greenspan and Gordon Brown honouring his memory would probaly have him spinning in his grave.
Stalin and lenin are heavy going and like religious sects spend a lot of time worrying about the faults of others-what Lenin called the infantile disorder. Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards. In the UK things have always shifted just enough to keep the lid on but it would be mistake to think there was never any kind of social upheaval or that politicians don't get a good smacking every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression. We have also traditionally had a very small army based at home. Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago. Even the french keep rewriting theirs.
to quote Winston Churchill
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Even if we owned the home outright we would still be paying taxes on it. So am I supposed to believe that I do not have an "official" telling me what to do?
If I rent a place to live I pay someone, if I own a place to live I pay someone.
What is the difference between that and socialism? Why is socialism so much worse? With socialism you won't see families out on the street, you won't have kids dying of brain infections because of a bad tooth.
They say that in a socialist society choices are made for you. Officials here tell you where you can live and how to build your home, how to drive, where you can and cannot walk, where you are permitted to stand, where you can smoke, where you can drink, what color you can paint your home, what responsibility you can take for your property, how fast you can drive, what you can drive, when you can gamble, where you can gamble and with whom you can gamble. They tell you where to shop and where to sell goods, when to sell them and regulate how those goods are acquired and sold.
Need I go on?
What is the difference?
The debate in europe has kind of moved on since the 1920's socialism means something very different here than it does in the US -or so it seems. Most political parties in europe take on board some of the main tenets of socialist ideas and are essentially social democratic in nature-particularly in healthcare also that companies need to be controlled to stop the major abuses they would get away with if they could. The idea that in a capitalist economy you don't need that kind of a control and that social responsibility gets in the way of business and companies should be free to pursue their business as they want without is a myth perpetrated by people who do know better but just like having their own way. mercantilism and capitalism are not one and the same.
try http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm although I suspect you already have. The sight of Alan Greenspan and Gordon Brown honouring his memory would probaly have him spinning in his grave.
Stalin and lenin are heavy going and like religious sects spend a lot of time worrying about the faults of others-what Lenin called the infantile disorder. Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards. In the UK things have always shifted just enough to keep the lid on but it would be mistake to think there was never any kind of social upheaval or that politicians don't get a good smacking every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression. We have also traditionally had a very small army based at home. Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago. Even the french keep rewriting theirs.
to quote Winston Churchill
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;707965 wrote: I am not free. I live in a society that has to be the most tightly controled in the world. In the history of mankind. I recently met a coworkers wife who is from Belgium and she was shocked by all of the laws we have here. As we speak me and my wife pay rent, we could own a home easily but choose not to (when I say own I mean own, not paying a mortguage to the bank and having that hammer over our head) because we don't want the responsibility of one.
Even if we owned the home outright we would still be paying taxes on it. So am I supposed to believe that I do not have an "official" telling me what to do?
If I rent a place to live I pay someone, if I own a place to live I pay someone.
What is the difference between that and socialism? Why is socialism so much worse? With socialism you won't see families out on the street, you won't have kids dying of brain infections because of a bad tooth.
They say that in a socialist society choices are made for you. Officials here tell you where you can live and how to build your home, how to drive, where you can and cannot walk, where you are permitted to stand, where you can smoke, where you can drink, what color you can paint your home, what responsibility you can take for your property, how fast you can drive, what you can drive, when you can gamble, where you can gamble and with whom you can gamble. They tell you where to shop and where to sell goods, when to sell them and regulate how those goods are acquired and sold.
Need I go on?
What is the difference?
The debate in europe has kind of moved on since the 1920's socialism means something very different here than it does in the US -or so it seems. Most political parties in europe take on board some of the main tenets of socialist ideas and are essentially social democratic in nature-particularly in healthcare also that companies need to be controlled to stop the major abuses they would get away with if they could. The idea that in a capitalist economy you don't need that kind of a control and that social responsibility gets in the way of business and companies should be free to pursue their business as they want without is a myth perpetrated by people who do know better but just like having their own way. mercantilism and capitalism are not one and the same.
try http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm although I suspect you already have. The sight of Alan Greenspan and Gordon Brown honouring his memory would probaly have him spinning in his grave.
Stalin and lenin are heavy going and like religious sects spend a lot of time worrying about the faults of others-what Lenin called the infantile disorder. Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards. In the UK things have always shifted just enough to keep the lid on but it would be mistake to think there was never any kind of social upheaval or that politicians don't get a good smacking every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression. We have also traditionally had a very small army based at home. Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago and no you don't have the right to tell your government to do that. Even the french keep rewriting theirs.
to quote Winston Churchill
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Even if we owned the home outright we would still be paying taxes on it. So am I supposed to believe that I do not have an "official" telling me what to do?
If I rent a place to live I pay someone, if I own a place to live I pay someone.
What is the difference between that and socialism? Why is socialism so much worse? With socialism you won't see families out on the street, you won't have kids dying of brain infections because of a bad tooth.
They say that in a socialist society choices are made for you. Officials here tell you where you can live and how to build your home, how to drive, where you can and cannot walk, where you are permitted to stand, where you can smoke, where you can drink, what color you can paint your home, what responsibility you can take for your property, how fast you can drive, what you can drive, when you can gamble, where you can gamble and with whom you can gamble. They tell you where to shop and where to sell goods, when to sell them and regulate how those goods are acquired and sold.
Need I go on?
What is the difference?
The debate in europe has kind of moved on since the 1920's socialism means something very different here than it does in the US -or so it seems. Most political parties in europe take on board some of the main tenets of socialist ideas and are essentially social democratic in nature-particularly in healthcare also that companies need to be controlled to stop the major abuses they would get away with if they could. The idea that in a capitalist economy you don't need that kind of a control and that social responsibility gets in the way of business and companies should be free to pursue their business as they want without is a myth perpetrated by people who do know better but just like having their own way. mercantilism and capitalism are not one and the same.
try http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm although I suspect you already have. The sight of Alan Greenspan and Gordon Brown honouring his memory would probaly have him spinning in his grave.
Stalin and lenin are heavy going and like religious sects spend a lot of time worrying about the faults of others-what Lenin called the infantile disorder. Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards. In the UK things have always shifted just enough to keep the lid on but it would be mistake to think there was never any kind of social upheaval or that politicians don't get a good smacking every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression. We have also traditionally had a very small army based at home. Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago and no you don't have the right to tell your government to do that. Even the french keep rewriting theirs.
to quote Winston Churchill
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Why not off the Kulaks?
[QUOTE=gmc;707990]The debate in europe has kind of moved on since the 1920's socialism means something very different here than it does in the US -or so it seems. Most political parties in europe take on board some of the main tenets of socialist ideas
What are socialist ideas? In a nut shell :-2
also that companies need to be controlled to stop the major abuses they would get away with if they could.
I agree with this. It's a shame that some people have to object to some other people based on something I consider an ethics point. I mean aren't we all of the same species? We have the same feelings about things don't we?
The idea that in a capitalist economy you don't need that kind of a control and that social responsibility gets in the way of business and companies should be free to pursue their business as they want without is a myth perpetrated by people who do know better but just like having their own way. mercantilism and capitalism are not one and the same.
Yes, this could be true in my view.
Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards.
How can the UK see through this 'to the problem' and other peoples cannot? Is this a difference in culture?
...every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression.
This may be a reason England can have a less than effective appearance to some parts of the world. There's never a best tactic when it comes to controling over-the-edge type people IMO.
Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago and no you don't have the right to tell your government to do that.
Hmm... this might be what's wrong with the US?
Erin
What are socialist ideas? In a nut shell :-2
also that companies need to be controlled to stop the major abuses they would get away with if they could.
I agree with this. It's a shame that some people have to object to some other people based on something I consider an ethics point. I mean aren't we all of the same species? We have the same feelings about things don't we?
The idea that in a capitalist economy you don't need that kind of a control and that social responsibility gets in the way of business and companies should be free to pursue their business as they want without is a myth perpetrated by people who do know better but just like having their own way. mercantilism and capitalism are not one and the same.
Yes, this could be true in my view.
Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards.
How can the UK see through this 'to the problem' and other peoples cannot? Is this a difference in culture?
...every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression.
This may be a reason England can have a less than effective appearance to some parts of the world. There's never a best tactic when it comes to controling over-the-edge type people IMO.
Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago and no you don't have the right to tell your government to do that.
Hmm... this might be what's wrong with the US?
Erin
Why not off the Kulaks?
Caveat: Erin not want to respond but feel compelled-yikes! Also remember I speak in terms of IMHO
gmc;707356 wrote: Ever look at what the communists did to the anarchists in spain? might put you off stalin.
Spain is an entirely different case from most European countries because this entity was overtaken many times not just by communists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
Ever look at what was happening in the US about the same time? Social upheaval left and right wing politics are not a wholly european phenomenon. It's amazing how social events and upheaval in different countries have echoes all around the world
You state the obvious
You may walk free but only thanks to those who went before.
In some ways that is a sentimental statement. And I mean this without a hint intended of disrespect for soldiers who fought in wars. And I am a mother of three boys, er, men.
posted by watermark
Can't avoid politics, even (literally) affects the air you breathe-you'd think clean air wouldn't be a political issue but a simple question of is this pollution bad for us, yes or no (car exhausts) but it gets made in to one.
Yes I guess reluctantly I agree with this. But I will never like this facet of society. Some people thrive on politics. I do not. It does not fuel my pump.
who is anyone to decide that? The first time anyone asked that was probably back in the stone age a minute after people realised they could talk.
Yes, probably so. But it doesn't make it right. I'd like to know who decided which foods were the better? Then I could pinpoint the culprit of all this greed :-5
E
gmc;707356 wrote: Ever look at what the communists did to the anarchists in spain? might put you off stalin.
Spain is an entirely different case from most European countries because this entity was overtaken many times not just by communists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
Ever look at what was happening in the US about the same time? Social upheaval left and right wing politics are not a wholly european phenomenon. It's amazing how social events and upheaval in different countries have echoes all around the world
You state the obvious
You may walk free but only thanks to those who went before.
In some ways that is a sentimental statement. And I mean this without a hint intended of disrespect for soldiers who fought in wars. And I am a mother of three boys, er, men.
posted by watermark
Can't avoid politics, even (literally) affects the air you breathe-you'd think clean air wouldn't be a political issue but a simple question of is this pollution bad for us, yes or no (car exhausts) but it gets made in to one.
Yes I guess reluctantly I agree with this. But I will never like this facet of society. Some people thrive on politics. I do not. It does not fuel my pump.
who is anyone to decide that? The first time anyone asked that was probably back in the stone age a minute after people realised they could talk.
Yes, probably so. But it doesn't make it right. I'd like to know who decided which foods were the better? Then I could pinpoint the culprit of all this greed :-5
E
Why not off the Kulaks?
Sorry didn't realise I had posted twice and I don't know how to remove it now.
posted by watermark
[quote=gmc;707990]The debate in europe has kind of moved on since the 1920's socialism means something very different here than it does in the US -or so it seems. Most political parties in europe take on board some of the main tenets of socialist ideas
What are socialist ideas? In a nut shell
oxford english dictionary
socialism
• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
— DERIVATIVES socialist noun & adjective socialistic adjective.
state socialism
• noun a political system in which the state has control of industries and services.
What i meant was that while you will still find those who want to nationalise everything they are gye few and far between. On the other hand there are some things that there is a consensus on that they should not be left to private companies. Health being the most obvious one. Things like utilties were denationalised under Maggie but there is outrage if they cut off power or gas to families with children or to old people for non payment. Whatever the reason letting someone freeze to death is rather frowned upon.
It's a political philosophy that didn't just appear out of nowhere there is along history of radicalism leading up to it and around it and beyond it.
Most political parties in europe are social democrat in nature so governments would be expected to intervene to help deprived areas or areas suffering due to a decline in industry as a matter of course rather than just ignoring the situation. The eec regional development fund was intended for just that purpose. The idea being the richer countries help the poorer economies and the resulting economic growth benefits all. Although it would be true to say there is a lot of argument about just how it should be done or even if it should. I happen to live in an area of the UK that has benefited considerably from it now the funds are going elsewhere.
posted by watermark
Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards.
How can the UK see through this 'to the problem' and other peoples cannot? Is this a difference in culture?
Nope. The principal communist revolutions took place in russia and china, two countries where theoretically there wasn't the proleteriat necessary to give the momentum. There wasn't a communist revolution in America either. Why not?
...every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression.
This may be a reason England can have a less than effective appearance to some parts of the world. There's never a best tactic when it comes to controlling over-the-edge type people IMO.
Don't quite get what you mean here?
Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago and no you don't have the right to tell your government to do that.
Hmm... this might be what's wrong with the US?
Dunno that's up to you to decide. Just some of the forum posters have suggested in other discussions that you don't have the right to do something or demand something from your government because it's not in the constitution. Always seems a spurious argument to me. Government should do what it's told and be afraid of annoying the voters imo.
posted by watermark
[quote=gmc;707990]The debate in europe has kind of moved on since the 1920's socialism means something very different here than it does in the US -or so it seems. Most political parties in europe take on board some of the main tenets of socialist ideas
What are socialist ideas? In a nut shell
oxford english dictionary
socialism
• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
— DERIVATIVES socialist noun & adjective socialistic adjective.
state socialism
• noun a political system in which the state has control of industries and services.
What i meant was that while you will still find those who want to nationalise everything they are gye few and far between. On the other hand there are some things that there is a consensus on that they should not be left to private companies. Health being the most obvious one. Things like utilties were denationalised under Maggie but there is outrage if they cut off power or gas to families with children or to old people for non payment. Whatever the reason letting someone freeze to death is rather frowned upon.
It's a political philosophy that didn't just appear out of nowhere there is along history of radicalism leading up to it and around it and beyond it.
Most political parties in europe are social democrat in nature so governments would be expected to intervene to help deprived areas or areas suffering due to a decline in industry as a matter of course rather than just ignoring the situation. The eec regional development fund was intended for just that purpose. The idea being the richer countries help the poorer economies and the resulting economic growth benefits all. Although it would be true to say there is a lot of argument about just how it should be done or even if it should. I happen to live in an area of the UK that has benefited considerably from it now the funds are going elsewhere.
posted by watermark
Communism never worked and probably never will as inevitably the pigs will take over the farm. It's also why there was never a communist revolution in the rest of europe an educated workforce sees straight through to the fundamental problem-who rules and all ou do is swop one set of masters for another, Far better to control the bastards.
How can the UK see through this 'to the problem' and other peoples cannot? Is this a difference in culture?
Nope. The principal communist revolutions took place in russia and china, two countries where theoretically there wasn't the proleteriat necessary to give the momentum. There wasn't a communist revolution in America either. Why not?
...every now and then. One of the main reasons our police force was never armed was so that it would not be viewed as an instrument of oppression.
This may be a reason England can have a less than effective appearance to some parts of the world. There's never a best tactic when it comes to controlling over-the-edge type people IMO.
Don't quite get what you mean here?
Not having a written constitution is a good idea as at least you don't get hung up on what was meant all those years ago and no you don't have the right to tell your government to do that.
Hmm... this might be what's wrong with the US?
Dunno that's up to you to decide. Just some of the forum posters have suggested in other discussions that you don't have the right to do something or demand something from your government because it's not in the constitution. Always seems a spurious argument to me. Government should do what it's told and be afraid of annoying the voters imo.
Why not off the Kulaks?
posted by scrat
Well GMC I can't get past the thought that we too live in a society ruled by others here in America. Not only that we oppress other peoples in ghastly ways to this day using terrorism, installing murderous dictators ect whom are little better than the worst there has ever been.
.
Twas ever so. It's up to you to change it then. people only put up with so much crap then they take action to change things. Not being an american I don't feel qualified to really comment on america as I don't exactly have a balanced view on things. Besides it seems quite difficult to talk about politics-especially international politics without being accused of being anti american. By that light I am also anti British and anti european because I'm not too chuffed with what is done in our name either. Imperialism is dead (but economic imperialism is still a reality) but it never really stopped the European powers acting to keep control of resources throughout the world. The opposition here is immense and very vocal (calling them tree hugging anti-capitalist loonies doesn't stop them having a say) to the practices of some of the international companies and very effective in some cases, Though it's a moot point how effective they are. The third world as it were is also learning to fight back although I notice when an elected south american government like that in venezuela decides that all the benefit from selling off their natural resources shouldn't go abroad nor belong to foreigners they become a nasty left wing govt exploiting the people as opposed to the nice one that lets foreign companies do what they want and shoots anybody that complains.
I fail to see that the American way of doing things is any better than the Soviet way of doing things, there are many reasons why the Soviet system failed (????) and there are many reasons the American way has succeeded. A lot of those reasons are due to geography and the fact that we keep a lot of people down in the dirt in order to live like we do.
I think that there are differences in character and mindset at work also. If you have been watching the upcoming Russian presidential fracas there is one thing that seems to stand out. The vast majority of Russians do not want Putin to leave. It seems they want a king, not a president. They have had a taste of western democracy and it left many of them scrabbling to survive and standing in soup lines. Democratic proponents get about as much respect from your average Russian as some PETA anti animal furr nutjob would get from your average Siberian on a cold winter day.
Social change is never easy. In some ways the US is in a time warp only now having discussions about welfare etc that most of Europe had post war with action being taken pretty much the way people wanted things to go. Fascism was never defeated in the US it went in to hiding for a while, showed itself for a while in the maccarthy era took a beating in the sixties and is still around. You never had the big debate about what kind of society did people want to live in and what was to be domne about it that we and western europe had. Any hint that some things should perhaps be run by govt for the benefit if all was communism-end of discussion. According to a 1949 State Department intelligence report, the term ‘Communists’ refers to those people who are committed to the belief that “the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people. (I keep coming across references to this but have not found the original source) Personally I think the government has responsibility for what it is told to do by those who elected it.
Well if I had to choose I would go for the american one. At least your government is still afraid of the voters that's why they have to fool them in to going to war. Hopefully they won't be fooled over Iran, looks like that might bring a response from russia. All wars have economics at their root in some way or another do they not? they want the oil as well. GW can't remain in power although it would be interesting to see if he would be elected again. Gordon Brown chickened out of an election here because labour would probably have lost it's majority in the house.
What do you reckon will happen if Turkey goes in after the Kurds on the iraq turkey border. Both sides want the oil but would the US stop the kurds getting their freedom from Iraqi domination and be prepared to fight Turkey? Pakistan is about to go fundamentalist it's just too bad they already have nuclear weapons.
I can see what happened to the Kulaks as unjust, I can also see their actions in the same light.
Events like the russian revolution are never black and white or simple cause and effect. Lenin after the october revolution said somewhere (can't find the reference just now ) that all it would have taken was one regiment to support the kerensky government for the revolution not to happen. He also tried to warn the party about Stalin having finally realised the nature of the man but he was too late to stop him.
I've always found history fascinating wondering what in would have done had I been faced with the same choices. In ww1 would I have gone over the trench with your comrades knowing you were going to die? Would you have opposed stalin and his slaughter knowing it would mean your death next? In 1776 would you have insisted that black people should be free as well or kept your mouth shut so as to still fit in with the rest of your mates?
Well GMC I can't get past the thought that we too live in a society ruled by others here in America. Not only that we oppress other peoples in ghastly ways to this day using terrorism, installing murderous dictators ect whom are little better than the worst there has ever been.
.
Twas ever so. It's up to you to change it then. people only put up with so much crap then they take action to change things. Not being an american I don't feel qualified to really comment on america as I don't exactly have a balanced view on things. Besides it seems quite difficult to talk about politics-especially international politics without being accused of being anti american. By that light I am also anti British and anti european because I'm not too chuffed with what is done in our name either. Imperialism is dead (but economic imperialism is still a reality) but it never really stopped the European powers acting to keep control of resources throughout the world. The opposition here is immense and very vocal (calling them tree hugging anti-capitalist loonies doesn't stop them having a say) to the practices of some of the international companies and very effective in some cases, Though it's a moot point how effective they are. The third world as it were is also learning to fight back although I notice when an elected south american government like that in venezuela decides that all the benefit from selling off their natural resources shouldn't go abroad nor belong to foreigners they become a nasty left wing govt exploiting the people as opposed to the nice one that lets foreign companies do what they want and shoots anybody that complains.
I fail to see that the American way of doing things is any better than the Soviet way of doing things, there are many reasons why the Soviet system failed (????) and there are many reasons the American way has succeeded. A lot of those reasons are due to geography and the fact that we keep a lot of people down in the dirt in order to live like we do.
I think that there are differences in character and mindset at work also. If you have been watching the upcoming Russian presidential fracas there is one thing that seems to stand out. The vast majority of Russians do not want Putin to leave. It seems they want a king, not a president. They have had a taste of western democracy and it left many of them scrabbling to survive and standing in soup lines. Democratic proponents get about as much respect from your average Russian as some PETA anti animal furr nutjob would get from your average Siberian on a cold winter day.
Social change is never easy. In some ways the US is in a time warp only now having discussions about welfare etc that most of Europe had post war with action being taken pretty much the way people wanted things to go. Fascism was never defeated in the US it went in to hiding for a while, showed itself for a while in the maccarthy era took a beating in the sixties and is still around. You never had the big debate about what kind of society did people want to live in and what was to be domne about it that we and western europe had. Any hint that some things should perhaps be run by govt for the benefit if all was communism-end of discussion. According to a 1949 State Department intelligence report, the term ‘Communists’ refers to those people who are committed to the belief that “the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people. (I keep coming across references to this but have not found the original source) Personally I think the government has responsibility for what it is told to do by those who elected it.
Well if I had to choose I would go for the american one. At least your government is still afraid of the voters that's why they have to fool them in to going to war. Hopefully they won't be fooled over Iran, looks like that might bring a response from russia. All wars have economics at their root in some way or another do they not? they want the oil as well. GW can't remain in power although it would be interesting to see if he would be elected again. Gordon Brown chickened out of an election here because labour would probably have lost it's majority in the house.
What do you reckon will happen if Turkey goes in after the Kurds on the iraq turkey border. Both sides want the oil but would the US stop the kurds getting their freedom from Iraqi domination and be prepared to fight Turkey? Pakistan is about to go fundamentalist it's just too bad they already have nuclear weapons.
I can see what happened to the Kulaks as unjust, I can also see their actions in the same light.
Events like the russian revolution are never black and white or simple cause and effect. Lenin after the october revolution said somewhere (can't find the reference just now ) that all it would have taken was one regiment to support the kerensky government for the revolution not to happen. He also tried to warn the party about Stalin having finally realised the nature of the man but he was too late to stop him.
I've always found history fascinating wondering what in would have done had I been faced with the same choices. In ww1 would I have gone over the trench with your comrades knowing you were going to die? Would you have opposed stalin and his slaughter knowing it would mean your death next? In 1776 would you have insisted that black people should be free as well or kept your mouth shut so as to still fit in with the rest of your mates?
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat: "People don't necessarily know what is good for them in the big picture. I can point to Belarus and the Ukraine. According to the west Belarus is a dictatorship filled with slaves starving and suffering under the whip of communism suffering horrible indignities no human should endure. "
How did the west come to this conclusion if it wasn't true? Actually I never had this opinion. All ll I know of the Ukraine and Belarus has come from the winter olympic games, and then I'm not even sure they participated much. It's not like I have a Belarusian penpal to keep me informed of things.
Scrat posted: "Ukraine is a capitalist paradise where everybody lives in bliss and opportunity abounds. Anyone can get a job at McDonalds for .50 cents an hour!! The mountain of garbage at the bins in the apartment complex is nothing to worry about and the apartment buildings blowing up are a temporary thing. Ukrainian trains are pigstys."
This is terrible! But it sounds like the inner city of some of US larger cities. Except for the apt buildings blowing up. Now if that happened here in US there would be a revolution I think.
Scrat: "Belarus has a command socialist economy, the Ukraine has a capitalist economy. People of Belarus have adequate health care and all the basic necessities of life easily obtainable AND OF GOOD QUALITY, the streets are clean the garbage is picked up and the trains are immaculate. They want to build a nuclear reactor, the people will not vote on it. The engineers of Belarus will make the decisions and safety will be top priority regardless of cost. Unlike Chernobyl."
Sounds like a civilized, nice place to live. So what's the catch??
Scrat: "Ukraine is a free for all, the connected wealthy have all of the opportunity and all of the money, the people do not have adequate health care nor do they have safe housing. The cost of basic foodstuffs has recently reached the level of 50% OF THE AVERAGE PERSONS INCOME!!"
If this happened in the US there would be an uprising. Not!
Scrat: "You want to go into the state of the agriculture? Something which both countries rely heavily on? Both countries have had bumper crops of wheat (about even) this year but Belarus has beat them in every other catagory, meat dairy you name it per capita. Belarussians are making a killing selling the surplus to Europe and Russia. The Ukraine can barely feed itself. Could it be because in Belarus farmers have access to horses or machinery whereas in the Ukraine most of the people in the country have to pull the plows themselves?"
My vote would to be like Belarus and not the Ukraine. Could I move there?
Scrat: "It seems the Kulaks are at it again. They have the ability to tell their government what to do in the Ukraine, and because of money and the fact that the politicians get rich also, the people suffer."
Who do those Kulaks think they are anyway??
Scrat: "How is the freedom of capitalism/democracy so much better than Belarus's command socialist pinko commie economy?"
Perhaps the name sounds better? "hello, my name is freebird and I'm from a command socialist pinko commie country, how 'bout yourself?"
Scrat: " What good does democracy do for the average Ukrainian?"
Nothing!
THANKS for the history lesson. I will look up all these places you speak of in the atlas. Most people don't know anything about the things that happen in the rest of the world. Or it could just be me.
Erin
How did the west come to this conclusion if it wasn't true? Actually I never had this opinion. All ll I know of the Ukraine and Belarus has come from the winter olympic games, and then I'm not even sure they participated much. It's not like I have a Belarusian penpal to keep me informed of things.
Scrat posted: "Ukraine is a capitalist paradise where everybody lives in bliss and opportunity abounds. Anyone can get a job at McDonalds for .50 cents an hour!! The mountain of garbage at the bins in the apartment complex is nothing to worry about and the apartment buildings blowing up are a temporary thing. Ukrainian trains are pigstys."
This is terrible! But it sounds like the inner city of some of US larger cities. Except for the apt buildings blowing up. Now if that happened here in US there would be a revolution I think.
Scrat: "Belarus has a command socialist economy, the Ukraine has a capitalist economy. People of Belarus have adequate health care and all the basic necessities of life easily obtainable AND OF GOOD QUALITY, the streets are clean the garbage is picked up and the trains are immaculate. They want to build a nuclear reactor, the people will not vote on it. The engineers of Belarus will make the decisions and safety will be top priority regardless of cost. Unlike Chernobyl."
Sounds like a civilized, nice place to live. So what's the catch??
Scrat: "Ukraine is a free for all, the connected wealthy have all of the opportunity and all of the money, the people do not have adequate health care nor do they have safe housing. The cost of basic foodstuffs has recently reached the level of 50% OF THE AVERAGE PERSONS INCOME!!"
If this happened in the US there would be an uprising. Not!
Scrat: "You want to go into the state of the agriculture? Something which both countries rely heavily on? Both countries have had bumper crops of wheat (about even) this year but Belarus has beat them in every other catagory, meat dairy you name it per capita. Belarussians are making a killing selling the surplus to Europe and Russia. The Ukraine can barely feed itself. Could it be because in Belarus farmers have access to horses or machinery whereas in the Ukraine most of the people in the country have to pull the plows themselves?"
My vote would to be like Belarus and not the Ukraine. Could I move there?
Scrat: "It seems the Kulaks are at it again. They have the ability to tell their government what to do in the Ukraine, and because of money and the fact that the politicians get rich also, the people suffer."
Who do those Kulaks think they are anyway??
Scrat: "How is the freedom of capitalism/democracy so much better than Belarus's command socialist pinko commie economy?"
Perhaps the name sounds better? "hello, my name is freebird and I'm from a command socialist pinko commie country, how 'bout yourself?"
Scrat: " What good does democracy do for the average Ukrainian?"
Nothing!
THANKS for the history lesson. I will look up all these places you speak of in the atlas. Most people don't know anything about the things that happen in the rest of the world. Or it could just be me.
Erin
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;713540 wrote: Of the catches there are many, the red tape is crippling and sometimes downright lunatic. My friend just had to stand in a line for almost 2 hours to pay a 3000 br tax on his apartment, about $1.50.
He is a university professor, he gets a good state provided apartment and a salary of about $600 a month of which the state is currently taking almost 60%. He makes more money by tutoring on the side a few nights a week . He also has to pay a small tax on his dacha out in the sticks. He has a wife and 2 children, a car. He also makes a lot of money off of the dachas garden which produces a lot of produce which his wife sells in the local market. I know he has other rackets going on too as do most Belarussians.
His "free" apartment is paid for through the tax on his salary, he is also restricted to his choice of places to work. Imported goods are prohibitively expensive. A TV produced there would cost about $70. An imported TV would cost 20 times that. A kilo of Belorussian ham costs about 50 cents, Polish ham is about 7 dollars a kilo.
Certain things are becoming more capitalist in nature and very corrupt. Air conditioning for example. I know in Gomel one company that does it and they sell Trane equipment. The people are theives, they are selling equipment way oversized for the application. They sell split systems where window units would do fine. The profits must be incredible considering the people don't know what they are buying.
All of this can be had for less on the blackmarket keep in mind. No one is adverse to smuggling there and I expect that is the way all of Europe is in one way or another. I don't know all of the "catches" but in ways things are very restrictive. I have never seen any government brutality by the police or any other state apparatus although laws are strictly enforced and if you are a troublemaker you will be dealt with.
Many of the challenges Belarus faces are because of the uncooperative attitudes of her neighbors and demographic challenges. 1/3 of the population is supporting the other 2/3 rds when it comes to the taxes. That's rough.
okay, thanks for taking the trouble to explain
He is a university professor, he gets a good state provided apartment and a salary of about $600 a month of which the state is currently taking almost 60%. He makes more money by tutoring on the side a few nights a week . He also has to pay a small tax on his dacha out in the sticks. He has a wife and 2 children, a car. He also makes a lot of money off of the dachas garden which produces a lot of produce which his wife sells in the local market. I know he has other rackets going on too as do most Belarussians.
His "free" apartment is paid for through the tax on his salary, he is also restricted to his choice of places to work. Imported goods are prohibitively expensive. A TV produced there would cost about $70. An imported TV would cost 20 times that. A kilo of Belorussian ham costs about 50 cents, Polish ham is about 7 dollars a kilo.
Certain things are becoming more capitalist in nature and very corrupt. Air conditioning for example. I know in Gomel one company that does it and they sell Trane equipment. The people are theives, they are selling equipment way oversized for the application. They sell split systems where window units would do fine. The profits must be incredible considering the people don't know what they are buying.
All of this can be had for less on the blackmarket keep in mind. No one is adverse to smuggling there and I expect that is the way all of Europe is in one way or another. I don't know all of the "catches" but in ways things are very restrictive. I have never seen any government brutality by the police or any other state apparatus although laws are strictly enforced and if you are a troublemaker you will be dealt with.
Many of the challenges Belarus faces are because of the uncooperative attitudes of her neighbors and demographic challenges. 1/3 of the population is supporting the other 2/3 rds when it comes to the taxes. That's rough.
okay, thanks for taking the trouble to explain
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;713745 wrote: It's a very complex subject. If you really want to look into it for yourself I strongly recommend you get news ect from both sides. Most of what is written in the west is biased although when it comes to bias believe me Russia and Belarus do their share. It is something best not left to the opinions of others but to ones own conclusions derived from study with due diligence.
I do know from having traveled there that things are not as they are portrayed here in the west. They are not Americans and do not live like Americans do, their sense of community puts ours to shame and that says a lot. In many ways they are just like us.
The thing is most people in the west don't actually live like americans either. Europe is not America with older buildings and a different language. The more the US tries to stir up russia the more strained relationships between europe and the US will become. The recent election results in Poland I think reflect european sentiment quite well, people are looking to the future and want to leave the past behind. Travelling across europe is very easy, the more people travel and get o know other countries the less hostile they are likely to be to each other-well I'd like to believe so anyway.
I do know from having traveled there that things are not as they are portrayed here in the west. They are not Americans and do not live like Americans do, their sense of community puts ours to shame and that says a lot. In many ways they are just like us.
The thing is most people in the west don't actually live like americans either. Europe is not America with older buildings and a different language. The more the US tries to stir up russia the more strained relationships between europe and the US will become. The recent election results in Poland I think reflect european sentiment quite well, people are looking to the future and want to leave the past behind. Travelling across europe is very easy, the more people travel and get o know other countries the less hostile they are likely to be to each other-well I'd like to believe so anyway.
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;714757 wrote: I like to think that also GMC but it is a question of who will win the day, the aggressive greedy self serving mindset or the more tolerant live and let live people?
We all know what history has to show us about that.
I would suggest that the more tolerant live and let live eventually win out but they are slow to take action until really stirred to it as by nature they let people do as they wish and realise too late where it is taking them. While they are being slow things can get a bit messy as events take over. I would like to think things like the internet and access to media beyond their own countries will make it harder for a few to set the agenda.
We all know what history has to show us about that.
I would suggest that the more tolerant live and let live eventually win out but they are slow to take action until really stirred to it as by nature they let people do as they wish and realise too late where it is taking them. While they are being slow things can get a bit messy as events take over. I would like to think things like the internet and access to media beyond their own countries will make it harder for a few to set the agenda.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Why not off the Kulaks?
watermark;707090 wrote: I mean who were they to make decisions about who ate or not? Maybe they felt they had no power prior to this event and felt it necessary to flex their muscle so to speak.
Or, maybe they thought that if they had enough money they could pay off the right officials and keep their men out of the "Revoloution".
Or, maybe they thought that if they had enough money they could pay off the right officials and keep their men out of the "Revoloution".
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;718275 wrote: 90% of the suffering in this world is due to the inherent corruption in human nature.
Corruption is inevitable with power. After all, aren't we simply animals trying to be as sophisticated as God(s)?
In your first post you mention how hunger and starvation drove people to accept a role of near slavery just to survive. Human beings will revert to basic animal instincts given enough motivation, be it deprivation or power.
As for the tolerant ones, practicing morals and ethics. I'll bet you they do inherit the earth. Simply because all the devious greedy underhanded ones will have eliminated each other out of the human race. Natural selection:D
As for Stalin's death camps, your a fool if you think that all who were sent to their deaths via hard labor, TB and dysentery, were deserving of their sentence. Stalin, like any other dictator, simply sought to eliminated any possible opposition be it political enemies or discarded lovers. Stalin was as crazy as a loon! Paranoid and egotistic he routinely fired staff and had them removed to the death camps for fear they plotted to kill him in his sleep. What he did was kill MILLIONS of citizens for whatever made up reason he wanted. :rolleyes: In any case, his dreams of a unified, industrialized Communist world kinda fell apart when the apathy of the communist life sunk in. I mean who wants to watch your leaders grow as fat a pigs while your still eating bread and cabbage soup four days a week, knowing you and your children and their children have no other future?
Viva la capitalism, Viva the Kulacks who had the nads to stand up to all of Russia and say "Pay up if you want to eat". Burning their crops like that, what a move!
Corruption is inevitable with power. After all, aren't we simply animals trying to be as sophisticated as God(s)?
In your first post you mention how hunger and starvation drove people to accept a role of near slavery just to survive. Human beings will revert to basic animal instincts given enough motivation, be it deprivation or power.
As for the tolerant ones, practicing morals and ethics. I'll bet you they do inherit the earth. Simply because all the devious greedy underhanded ones will have eliminated each other out of the human race. Natural selection:D
As for Stalin's death camps, your a fool if you think that all who were sent to their deaths via hard labor, TB and dysentery, were deserving of their sentence. Stalin, like any other dictator, simply sought to eliminated any possible opposition be it political enemies or discarded lovers. Stalin was as crazy as a loon! Paranoid and egotistic he routinely fired staff and had them removed to the death camps for fear they plotted to kill him in his sleep. What he did was kill MILLIONS of citizens for whatever made up reason he wanted. :rolleyes: In any case, his dreams of a unified, industrialized Communist world kinda fell apart when the apathy of the communist life sunk in. I mean who wants to watch your leaders grow as fat a pigs while your still eating bread and cabbage soup four days a week, knowing you and your children and their children have no other future?
Viva la capitalism, Viva the Kulacks who had the nads to stand up to all of Russia and say "Pay up if you want to eat". Burning their crops like that, what a move!
Why not off the Kulaks?
posted by scrat
The tolerant don't have a chance GMC. They are the sheep in a society. That is reality no matter how hard you wish or believe or hope. Look at what happened the other day in Georgia, the sheep ran. It's irrelevant that 50 or 100 thousand people were in Tablisi protesting the policies of the state. When the moment of truth came, they failed. They ran. Shakeasswilli and his cronies should have been strung up in the square that day, he is still in power, him and his cronies are still raking in the cash.
That's one of the myths put around by those who argue you need a strong leader-sometimes you do but only so long as they can be disposed of when no longer needed. Being tolerant doesn't make you weak. Those of an intolerant disposition are usually afraid of everybody. It's like yappie dog syndrome, yappie dogs aren't aggressive because they are tough it's because they are terrified. Ultimately Russia will change and shape it's own future taking bits from it's past and from other countries to shape the way they want to live. There is no quick fix or panacea that suits all situations. Shakeasswilli will eventually be replaced and hopefully not by another dictator.
posted by scrat
Can you believe this? It happened with the help of government officials. It could not have been done any other way. The people of the Ukraine are so demoralized and so beaten down by the scum that is running their country they have no eye for the power they have let alone for their future. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. They are even going to CUT THE BUDGET FOR SCHOOLS THERE SO THE TAX RATE WILL NOT BE SO HIGH!!
Yes I can, there are umpteen examples of corruption all over the world. I'm not too thrilled by the scum running the UK at the moment but their days are numbered.
posted by scrat
You asked me somewhere if I would've served under Stalin. I have to say yes. 90 percent of the people he sent to the gulag and had offed for whatever reason were corrupt individuals that stole for themselves. This is not a bad thing. Not only would I serve under him, I would be his executioner. 90% of the suffering in this world is due to the inherent corruption in human nature.
Then having failed to persuade you as to the error of your ways you and I would be on opposite sides. Sad you should be so attracted to a homocidal maniac-Why not Hitler? the nazis had prettier uniforms.
Ever had a read of what Lenin had to say about Stalin? Towards the end he realised what would happen if Staling got control of the party.
Stalin's legacy of terror will gradually fade away and new ideologies will win out-probably fairly liberal in nature with the power of the state to arrest who it likes curtailed in some way and the power of the executive controlled in some peculiarly russian way.
One dictator who allegedly influenced your founding fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus
posted by double helix
As for the tolerant ones, practicing morals and ethics. I'll bet you they do inherit the earth. Simply because all the devious greedy underhanded ones will have eliminated each other out of the human race. Natural selection
Best survival tactic of all. Right from the time one ape said to another let's help one another to hunt. But evolution takes a long time.
The tolerant don't have a chance GMC. They are the sheep in a society. That is reality no matter how hard you wish or believe or hope. Look at what happened the other day in Georgia, the sheep ran. It's irrelevant that 50 or 100 thousand people were in Tablisi protesting the policies of the state. When the moment of truth came, they failed. They ran. Shakeasswilli and his cronies should have been strung up in the square that day, he is still in power, him and his cronies are still raking in the cash.
That's one of the myths put around by those who argue you need a strong leader-sometimes you do but only so long as they can be disposed of when no longer needed. Being tolerant doesn't make you weak. Those of an intolerant disposition are usually afraid of everybody. It's like yappie dog syndrome, yappie dogs aren't aggressive because they are tough it's because they are terrified. Ultimately Russia will change and shape it's own future taking bits from it's past and from other countries to shape the way they want to live. There is no quick fix or panacea that suits all situations. Shakeasswilli will eventually be replaced and hopefully not by another dictator.
posted by scrat
Can you believe this? It happened with the help of government officials. It could not have been done any other way. The people of the Ukraine are so demoralized and so beaten down by the scum that is running their country they have no eye for the power they have let alone for their future. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. They are even going to CUT THE BUDGET FOR SCHOOLS THERE SO THE TAX RATE WILL NOT BE SO HIGH!!
Yes I can, there are umpteen examples of corruption all over the world. I'm not too thrilled by the scum running the UK at the moment but their days are numbered.
posted by scrat
You asked me somewhere if I would've served under Stalin. I have to say yes. 90 percent of the people he sent to the gulag and had offed for whatever reason were corrupt individuals that stole for themselves. This is not a bad thing. Not only would I serve under him, I would be his executioner. 90% of the suffering in this world is due to the inherent corruption in human nature.
Then having failed to persuade you as to the error of your ways you and I would be on opposite sides. Sad you should be so attracted to a homocidal maniac-Why not Hitler? the nazis had prettier uniforms.
Ever had a read of what Lenin had to say about Stalin? Towards the end he realised what would happen if Staling got control of the party.
Stalin's legacy of terror will gradually fade away and new ideologies will win out-probably fairly liberal in nature with the power of the state to arrest who it likes curtailed in some way and the power of the executive controlled in some peculiarly russian way.
One dictator who allegedly influenced your founding fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus
posted by double helix
As for the tolerant ones, practicing morals and ethics. I'll bet you they do inherit the earth. Simply because all the devious greedy underhanded ones will have eliminated each other out of the human race. Natural selection
Best survival tactic of all. Right from the time one ape said to another let's help one another to hunt. But evolution takes a long time.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;718371 wrote:
When you expect me to compare the near extinction of the Eskimo race due to bootleg whisky to what Stalin did, to me there is no comparison. Stalin did what he did to bring Russia out of the dark ages. The government of America did what it did because it was the natural superiority of one race over another and the natural progression of all things in the world.
Who in the hell are the most like the Nazis? Let me make it simple for you.
Stalin got rid of the corrupt and unfortunately some innocents got caught in the net. He built an industry that was capable of defeating in toto the greatest armed force mankind has ever seen and brought a country through a period of destruction the likes of which the world has never seen before or since.
Americans offed millions for a profit. Because it was the manifest destiny of Americans to dominate and exterminate the natives.
Get it? It's the difference between construction and destruction.
Hmm. Well since you bring up the Eskimos and bootleg whisky...I was married to an Eskimo. I sure as hell didn't pour the whiskey down his throat, nor his fathers or for that matter his mothers or siblings. No, they have quite a little business of their own going. As does two-thirds of the rest of the NATIVES in the villages of Alaska. Same for Canada for that matter.
Imagine, these two countries working together to end alcoholism in their Native populations. Who would have thunk it!
I believe it was the Italians and Frenchmen who introduced plague drenched blankets to the Indians first along with glass beads, steel and guns. I know it was the French who introduced scalping as a way of winning the Americas for themselves during the French American war, and I believe it was the Spaniards who lay the ground work for Andrews Manifest Destiny by first deviating and then enslaving the Indians. After they had taken as much from them as they could in the south, anyway.
You honestly want to explain away the behavior of mankind. It cannot be done. Mankind is a beast all dressed up in the image of God, suffering the angst of knowing, without doubt, he will never be naught but a beast.
Does the greater good outweigh the death of innocents? Isn't that what both Stalin and Andrew Jackson used for the basis of their actions?
When you expect me to compare the near extinction of the Eskimo race due to bootleg whisky to what Stalin did, to me there is no comparison. Stalin did what he did to bring Russia out of the dark ages. The government of America did what it did because it was the natural superiority of one race over another and the natural progression of all things in the world.
Who in the hell are the most like the Nazis? Let me make it simple for you.
Stalin got rid of the corrupt and unfortunately some innocents got caught in the net. He built an industry that was capable of defeating in toto the greatest armed force mankind has ever seen and brought a country through a period of destruction the likes of which the world has never seen before or since.
Americans offed millions for a profit. Because it was the manifest destiny of Americans to dominate and exterminate the natives.
Get it? It's the difference between construction and destruction.
Hmm. Well since you bring up the Eskimos and bootleg whisky...I was married to an Eskimo. I sure as hell didn't pour the whiskey down his throat, nor his fathers or for that matter his mothers or siblings. No, they have quite a little business of their own going. As does two-thirds of the rest of the NATIVES in the villages of Alaska. Same for Canada for that matter.
Imagine, these two countries working together to end alcoholism in their Native populations. Who would have thunk it!
I believe it was the Italians and Frenchmen who introduced plague drenched blankets to the Indians first along with glass beads, steel and guns. I know it was the French who introduced scalping as a way of winning the Americas for themselves during the French American war, and I believe it was the Spaniards who lay the ground work for Andrews Manifest Destiny by first deviating and then enslaving the Indians. After they had taken as much from them as they could in the south, anyway.
You honestly want to explain away the behavior of mankind. It cannot be done. Mankind is a beast all dressed up in the image of God, suffering the angst of knowing, without doubt, he will never be naught but a beast.
Does the greater good outweigh the death of innocents? Isn't that what both Stalin and Andrew Jackson used for the basis of their actions?
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;718371 wrote: You have to break a few eggs to make an omelete. You're a fool to believe the stuff that is written here in the west. Yes a lot of people died in the Gulag system though the fact is no one knows how many but it was undoubtedly not in the numbers written, the same for the Ukrainian famine. It's called propaganda. A lot of people died in the prison system of America at that time also. You can go into the atrocities written about him also but you will notice that you never heard that you never hear a lot about Andrew Jackson and the doctrin of Manifest Destiny that led to the near genocide of the American indian population.
When you expect me to compare the near extinction of the Eskimo race due to bootleg whisky to what Stalin did, to me there is no comparison. Stalin did what he did to bring Russia out of the dark ages. The government of America did what it did because it was the natural superiority of one race over another and the natural progression of all things in the world.
Who in the hell are the most like the Nazis? Let me make it simple for you.
Stalin got rid of the corrupt and unfortunately some innocents got caught in the net. He built an industry that was capable of defeating in toto the greatest armed force mankind has ever seen and brought a country through a period of destruction the likes of which the world has never seen before or since.
Americans offed millions for a profit. Because it was the manifest destiny of Americans to dominate and exterminate the natives.
Get it? It's the difference between construction and destruction. Integration and annihilation.
Read the above. It's the lesser of 2 weevils?
You can't really excuse Stalin by pointing out that other people are just as bad or bad things have been done in the name of religion, race, country etc. etc. It's like saying Hitler was a good chap that just went a bit too far. Yes I have actually heard of manifest destiny. All the information is there for anyone that cares to look for it-it's hardly a big secret with people trying to pretend it didn't happen or cover it up is it? (actually we did that at school-it wasn't just an american phenomenon it was a useful justification for empire-white man's burden and all that. Social darwinism isn't an american concept you just coined the phrase)
It's a toss up who was worse for the indians the spanish or the english and french. The belgians and portuguese were really nasty to the poor africans as opposed to the british who took the white man's burden bit to heart. (slight sarcasm there just in case you don't realise it) The British are responsible for the only successful deliberate act of genocide in history and I wouldn't excuse us for that either. The romans decimated whole triibes and enslaved the survivors also in the name of manifest destiny. Atrocities are nothing new.
I suspect the problem is you haven't read enough of what is available in the west. For instance you can get hold of translations of everything stalin in any language you want. . At least you can where I live and I don't see why the states should be any different. Just out of curiosity can you buy a copy of The Wealth of Nations in Russia? Given it's influence on the development of socialism I would have thought you would. You can also buy the thoughts of chairman mao if you feel like it and Mien Kampf if you want variety.
You're really getting desperate aren't you. Stalin was a homocidal maniac that destroyed when he didn't have to. Destruction for the sake of it as he pursued his own prejudices. He turned the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proleteriat in to a simple one party dictatorship with him controlling the party and anyone that did not toe the party line or even looked as if they might be a threat t his power going to the gulags. Whether leninism lead to stalinism is a moot point much debated about. Bit like religion though, people tend to quote bits of text at each other and treat it like gospel and don't question the basis of the faith. Without him the Russian revolution would have been very different arguably he delayed progress in Russia which is now playing catch up. Political theories that offer panaceas to make things better for everybody never work no matter who comes out with them. Always a mix is better, try things and change if it doesn't work without treating it like dogma.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/2419/lensta.html
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pa ... m=frameset;
When you expect me to compare the near extinction of the Eskimo race due to bootleg whisky to what Stalin did, to me there is no comparison. Stalin did what he did to bring Russia out of the dark ages. The government of America did what it did because it was the natural superiority of one race over another and the natural progression of all things in the world.
Who in the hell are the most like the Nazis? Let me make it simple for you.
Stalin got rid of the corrupt and unfortunately some innocents got caught in the net. He built an industry that was capable of defeating in toto the greatest armed force mankind has ever seen and brought a country through a period of destruction the likes of which the world has never seen before or since.
Americans offed millions for a profit. Because it was the manifest destiny of Americans to dominate and exterminate the natives.
Get it? It's the difference between construction and destruction. Integration and annihilation.
Read the above. It's the lesser of 2 weevils?
You can't really excuse Stalin by pointing out that other people are just as bad or bad things have been done in the name of religion, race, country etc. etc. It's like saying Hitler was a good chap that just went a bit too far. Yes I have actually heard of manifest destiny. All the information is there for anyone that cares to look for it-it's hardly a big secret with people trying to pretend it didn't happen or cover it up is it? (actually we did that at school-it wasn't just an american phenomenon it was a useful justification for empire-white man's burden and all that. Social darwinism isn't an american concept you just coined the phrase)
It's a toss up who was worse for the indians the spanish or the english and french. The belgians and portuguese were really nasty to the poor africans as opposed to the british who took the white man's burden bit to heart. (slight sarcasm there just in case you don't realise it) The British are responsible for the only successful deliberate act of genocide in history and I wouldn't excuse us for that either. The romans decimated whole triibes and enslaved the survivors also in the name of manifest destiny. Atrocities are nothing new.
I suspect the problem is you haven't read enough of what is available in the west. For instance you can get hold of translations of everything stalin in any language you want. . At least you can where I live and I don't see why the states should be any different. Just out of curiosity can you buy a copy of The Wealth of Nations in Russia? Given it's influence on the development of socialism I would have thought you would. You can also buy the thoughts of chairman mao if you feel like it and Mien Kampf if you want variety.
You're really getting desperate aren't you. Stalin was a homocidal maniac that destroyed when he didn't have to. Destruction for the sake of it as he pursued his own prejudices. He turned the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proleteriat in to a simple one party dictatorship with him controlling the party and anyone that did not toe the party line or even looked as if they might be a threat t his power going to the gulags. Whether leninism lead to stalinism is a moot point much debated about. Bit like religion though, people tend to quote bits of text at each other and treat it like gospel and don't question the basis of the faith. Without him the Russian revolution would have been very different arguably he delayed progress in Russia which is now playing catch up. Political theories that offer panaceas to make things better for everybody never work no matter who comes out with them. Always a mix is better, try things and change if it doesn't work without treating it like dogma.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/2419/lensta.html
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pa ... m=frameset;
Why not off the Kulaks?
posted by scrat
You can't really excuse the western world for any of that either. Definitely not, concentration camps were invented by the British. Hitler was enabled by western industrialists, we did mass air raids on civilians in WWII while ignoring the residences of the Nazi party. America produced and used the most destructive weapon ever devised by mankind. Need I go on? I believe that collectively the western leaders and the western system are/is far worse than anything the Russians or Soviet Union ever produced.
I wasn't actually trying to excuse them just as you can't excuse stalin by comparing him with others. None of them is a bid secret or covered up
posted by scrat
Not really, you have not succeeded in changing my mind though. Are you? You can recoomend all of the books you like but it will not change what I see with my own eyes.
Not trying to change your mind just make you think a bit more-sounds slightly patronising but I don't mean it that way. Seems to me you need to look a bit more closely. Stalin took the socialist revolution in Russia and corrupted it and it was a disappointment to may the way things went. Did he have to be so brutal is a moot point that only the Russians can decide for themselves. Does the end justify the means? I would say no and would say no to any politician or would be leader that comes out with that statement. Warfare makes acceptable behaviour that would be condemned in peacetime as people get hardened to it and people do what it takes to win. Total war isn't a 20th century invention but the technology available now is staggering. Did Stalin need to off the Kulaks? Bit stupid to ruin the food supply but Kulaks were a convenient scapegoat for the failure of the economic policy and a class enemy to boot.
How about the way he crushed all the democratically elected soviets that didn't toe the line, was he justified there? hardly class enemies were they?
maybe you should actually read some of the contemporary accounts and debates to see what those around at the time thought of what stalin was doing. There is plenty of russian material around. I take it you have read what stalin had to say on the subject.
Jackson did it for material gain and expansion and because it was the "destiny" of white Americans to rule the land. Almost in a religious sense. I think it is questionable simply because it could have been done an easier/better way. Stalin did what he did to bring a country out of the dark ages.
Most people look back now at what was done in the name of empire or manifest destiny and are appalled by it-actually many were at the time but could do nothing to stop it. The rose tinted specs are no longer there. I wonder about yours.
You can't really excuse the western world for any of that either. Definitely not, concentration camps were invented by the British. Hitler was enabled by western industrialists, we did mass air raids on civilians in WWII while ignoring the residences of the Nazi party. America produced and used the most destructive weapon ever devised by mankind. Need I go on? I believe that collectively the western leaders and the western system are/is far worse than anything the Russians or Soviet Union ever produced.
I wasn't actually trying to excuse them just as you can't excuse stalin by comparing him with others. None of them is a bid secret or covered up
posted by scrat
Not really, you have not succeeded in changing my mind though. Are you? You can recoomend all of the books you like but it will not change what I see with my own eyes.
Not trying to change your mind just make you think a bit more-sounds slightly patronising but I don't mean it that way. Seems to me you need to look a bit more closely. Stalin took the socialist revolution in Russia and corrupted it and it was a disappointment to may the way things went. Did he have to be so brutal is a moot point that only the Russians can decide for themselves. Does the end justify the means? I would say no and would say no to any politician or would be leader that comes out with that statement. Warfare makes acceptable behaviour that would be condemned in peacetime as people get hardened to it and people do what it takes to win. Total war isn't a 20th century invention but the technology available now is staggering. Did Stalin need to off the Kulaks? Bit stupid to ruin the food supply but Kulaks were a convenient scapegoat for the failure of the economic policy and a class enemy to boot.
How about the way he crushed all the democratically elected soviets that didn't toe the line, was he justified there? hardly class enemies were they?
maybe you should actually read some of the contemporary accounts and debates to see what those around at the time thought of what stalin was doing. There is plenty of russian material around. I take it you have read what stalin had to say on the subject.
Jackson did it for material gain and expansion and because it was the "destiny" of white Americans to rule the land. Almost in a religious sense. I think it is questionable simply because it could have been done an easier/better way. Stalin did what he did to bring a country out of the dark ages.
Most people look back now at what was done in the name of empire or manifest destiny and are appalled by it-actually many were at the time but could do nothing to stop it. The rose tinted specs are no longer there. I wonder about yours.
Why not off the Kulaks?
Scrat;726483 wrote: It seems to me GMC that it comes down to a matter of perspective and how we express them for the 2 of us. Stalin was no angel, neither was Abraham Lincoln or Churchill although the respective societies in some way look up to all of them and in others, look down on them.
All leaders leave legacies, the legacy of Stalin is still there whereever you go in Russia both the good and the bad. It's not going to change, nor will you or I change one anothers mind.
All men of their times I think. There's little doubt IMO Churchill would have used nuclear weapons if he had had them just as Hitler would have done the same to us. I have seen it suggested that when they tested anthrax on Grunaird Island it was as much to warn Hitler not to use chemical weapons as it was to see if it worked. Churchill was voted out of office immediately remember-there were many who remembered him as being the one ready to use troops against his own people and weren't going to go back to the way things had been before the war.
Not particularly trying to change your mind either but just having fun arguing. I find with history people tend to assume that what happens in other countries doesn't have echoes or an effect on other countries. We've always been more connected and influenced than most realise. There is a very rich treasure trove of contemporary reports and discussion on what was happening in Russia, including many who knew stalin throughout the world in China and the US as well if you look hard enough. Fascinating if you have the inclination to read them. Establishments everywhere were terrified the status quo might be changed. Personally I think govrnments should be terrified of the voters
The scots connection goes back a long way.
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/scoruss.html
All leaders leave legacies, the legacy of Stalin is still there whereever you go in Russia both the good and the bad. It's not going to change, nor will you or I change one anothers mind.
All men of their times I think. There's little doubt IMO Churchill would have used nuclear weapons if he had had them just as Hitler would have done the same to us. I have seen it suggested that when they tested anthrax on Grunaird Island it was as much to warn Hitler not to use chemical weapons as it was to see if it worked. Churchill was voted out of office immediately remember-there were many who remembered him as being the one ready to use troops against his own people and weren't going to go back to the way things had been before the war.
Not particularly trying to change your mind either but just having fun arguing. I find with history people tend to assume that what happens in other countries doesn't have echoes or an effect on other countries. We've always been more connected and influenced than most realise. There is a very rich treasure trove of contemporary reports and discussion on what was happening in Russia, including many who knew stalin throughout the world in China and the US as well if you look hard enough. Fascinating if you have the inclination to read them. Establishments everywhere were terrified the status quo might be changed. Personally I think govrnments should be terrified of the voters
The scots connection goes back a long way.
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/scoruss.html