The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIsrael Shamir Archive
Facing Aurora
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_414255259

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For Russians, “Aurora” is not the Goddess of Dawn; it is first of all the battleship Aurora, the legendary cruiser whose thundering salvo over the Winter Palace had started the Russian Revolution in November 1917. Recently I participated in a conference commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in the Mirror of World Left Movement, in St Petersburg, the City of the Revolution, attended by representatives of European socialist parties. In front of our venue, we had the cruiser Aurora, and it helped concentrate our minds on the only important things, victory and defeat.

The Left had won a hundred years ago, and the Left lost quarter of century ago. When the Soviet system went down, there was a wide-spread illusion that the Left would blossom as the eternally young movement had gotten rid of rusty old-fashioned Russia. This was the idea of the Euro-Communists. Surprisingly, the Left just agonised and died after 1991. The Euro-Communist parties vanished. We did not know it, or we denied it, but apparently, the world Left movement had been connected with the Russian Revolution.

A hundred years ago, Lenin and Stalin solved all their problems by cutting the Gordian knot of greed. They modernised their country, they gave people hope, they offered a choice for the workers. They did not turn Russia into a paradise, though the Soviet Russia of the 1960s had been as developed and as prosperous as any core country of Western Europe.

Paradoxically, the Western workers had been the greatest beneficiaries of the Russian Revolution. The Western owner class had been scared by the Russian communists and afterwards behaved rather nicely. It shared its profits with its workers. Your life has been good because the naval guns of the Aurora threatened your One Per cent. In 1991, the communists were defeated through the treason of their leaders. And since then, the victorious Western owners have gone into full-scale Reconquista. They took away all the achievements of the workers, and created this new world of immense wealth for a few and growing misery for the rest.

But what was lost, can be regained. The capitalists did not despair in 1917, the communists should not despair in 2017. It seems that there is no other way, no shortcut: the world needs new Lenins and Stalins. Greed should be defeated again, media and factories have to be taken away from the owners. Not only minimal, but a maximal income should be legislated.

Populism became a dirty word, but I’ll tell you: there should be more, much more populism. Work with dignity for workers – this populist slogan gave Trump his entry ticket in the White House. People should be given whatever they want. Lenin promised to give land to farmers, factories to workers, peace to nations, and his government did it as much as they could. People now want to be sure of their tomorrows, they want their children to study, they want to have free medical care and affordable, good housing; they want freedom and safety. They want to regain all that was lost after 1991. And if for this purpose some bankers should be retired to the wall at Dawn, so be it.

No more Mister Nice Guy, this is the first commandment for the Left’s comeback. The Left should part its ways with the liberals.

It’s the right time for divorce, if it’s not too late. Oh gosh, but why? The Left and liberals appear happily married. At first, it was a marriage of convenience, but by now it’s a marriage of love. So far so good. It’s just that the life expectancy of the Left became pretty short, as that of an octopussy’s mate. These creatures (Octopus cyanea, to be precise) eat their mates after they have done their job. The Left did its job, and now it is ripe to be eaten. But who will notice the Left’s disappearance?

Sometimes I am ashamed of belonging to the Left. Ask a man on the street, what do the leftists strive for, and he will tell you: these are the good people who support good causes. Transgender toilets, gay marriages, women for CEOs, Syrian refugees, climate change, access for the handicapped, perhaps unemployment benefits. They are certainly against immigrant discrimination, micro-insults, they are for political correctness and identity politics. The Left hates Putin and Trump, and loves Israel though not its present Prime Minister.

Or even worse. With a sense of short, sharp shock I’ve read it three times, and I couldn’t believe my eyes. A honourable writer of Unz.com, Dr. Paul Gottfried, described the red-faced ADL ex-boss, Abe Foxman as a “leftist”. This is really an insult. A Jewish nationalist like Mr Foxman can’t be a leftist. Stalin would have sent him to the Far North-East of Siberia, where the hard work and hard climate would cure him of his permanent indignation and constipation. Leftists are not against “white Christian majority population,” as Gottfried claims. Leftists are for the working class majority.

There is no light between the Left and the liberal agenda, you’d say. And now, surprise! Until 1990, the Left and the liberals were sworn enemies. The Left was for the workers; its icon, Stalin, scared the hell out of liberals; he advised the German Communists to make an alliance with the German Far Right instead of Liberals; its Marxism was not the cultural abomination, but real trouble for the rich guys. But after 1990, the Left joined with the victorious liberals – for practical reasons. As it happens in marriage of convenience, their relations turned to true love, and eventually they became one.

ORDER IT NOW

In politics, Occam’s Razor works mercilessly. The Left had lost its own identity, and a reason to exist. Now it disappears, having been eaten by liberals. Usually, the way to oblivion goes through a government coalition. Whenever the Left joined the government of the liberals (they could call it National Unity, or Popular Front, or Stop the Beast Government), the Left melted in the liberals’ hot embrace.

I am very sorry that the Counterpunch, a publication I liked and wrote for many years (admittedly, in Alex Cockburn’s days), has succumbed to that disease. They still call themselves the Voice of American Left, but they publish John Feffer. The nauseous beastie, Feffer, a “leftist”-for-free-immigration-war-with-Russia-and-against-Trump, made a call: “Everyone to the left of Ann Coulter should be on board. If ever there were a time for unity, it is now.” Oh no, I want to stay with Ann Coulter who wrote on almost the same day Feffer penned his garbage: Let Russia be our sister-state. And the last thing I want is unity with Feffer.

 

Fefferite unity for all brought us to this place: the Left is dying, and the Liberals will inherit the lot. The anti-Liberal Right is not a viable alternative, alas. The recent Dutch elections on March 15 proved that point.

I wonder whether you followed these elections, the most interesting and most important event coming out of Netherlands since the Glorious Revolution. It was impossible to predict how the Dutch would vote. The Trump effect, people said darkly, and hinted that the Dutch would vote for their own Trump, called Geert Wilders.

The guess was quite a reasonable one. The Netherlands had been governed by a joyless coalition of Right and Left. It makes no difference whether you prefer left or right, anyway the parties of Left and Right rule together. It is the establishment that governs, while democracy provides a smoke screen.

With such a government, it was expected that people would vote for an outsider. But for whom? The Netherlands, like the rest of Western Europe and North America, has a large dissatisfied electorate of ‘Deplorables,’ victims of neo-liberalism. They suffer being pushed by waves of immigrants out of their jobs and housing, or they had landed, instead of steady employment in a steel plant, temporary jobs at McDonalds.

The Deplorables could vote for the old-style Left, as these unemployed or precariously employed men were dispossessed by the rich and powerful. But the present-day-Left (PvdA) did not care for them. The Left enjoyed its alliance with the liberal elite, with Jewish and Jewified financiers and media; tolerance (meaning priority for minority), cultural Marxism (it is not even a relation of real class-based red-tooth Marxism), elitism were of greater importance for them than the blue-collar workers to whom they felt little affinity.

The mainstream right-wing (VVD of Prime Minister Mark Rutte) is a party of wealthy establishment. They carry out neo-liberal policies, they import immigrants, they support NATO, they are anti-Russian. They are similar to the pre-Trump Republicans, not an appealing lot for dispossessed men.

The Freedom Party (PVV) of Geert Wilders homed in the Deplorables. Wilders is a liberal gay guy who hates Islam and immigrants, he loves Israel as he considers it as the European bastion in the sea of Islam. He is quite anti-Russian, but he is anti-establishment. Or is he? The ruling parties loved and used Wilders’ party in order to to scare the voters into obedience. If you won’t vote for us, Wilders the nazi-fascist will win and take Holland to hell.

This is a usual trick in Europe. In Sweden, too, the mainstream right and left parties united in a government citing the scary Sweden’s Democrats as the reason. In France, “anybody but LePen” is the slogan of Macron’s gang.

Even in the Ukraine, the former president Yanukowych nurtured, bankrolled and promoted the fascist Freedom Party hoping that all the rest would support him as the only alternative. This plan misfired, as had every plan hatched by Viktor Yanukowych.

Wilders party is practically a single issue party: against Muslim immigrants. This year, because of influx of Syrians, the PVV had a chance to move mainstream. He was expected to win 30% of the vote in the highly fragmented elections. The dispossessed were sufficiently desperate to vote for a devil himself as long he was not a member of the government coalition. And resistance to mass immigration following Merkel’s appeal (“please come you all”) became acute.

The real Communist Left is usually against immigration: Cuban Communists are a good example. There are many Latin Americans who would love to go to Cuba, one of the more prosperous and pleasant countries in the Western hemisphere, but Cuba does not take the immigrants, as a rule. Immigration is not good for local people, and Communists are first of all for local people.

The Dutch Liberal Left was in favour of the Third World mass immigration. They thought the immigrants would vote for them, and they had as little empathy towards the native workers, as the Right had had. They belong to a comfortable well-to-do class of scholars and officials, and they do not mind immigrants, for poor immigrants with their strange customs can’t rent apartments in the prosperous areas where the leftists live and they can’t steal their jobs either.

Immigrants cause discomfort for lower classes, while the wealthy and prosperous benefit from immigration. They can get their housecleaning maids for less money. If the rich and powerful would not want it, no immigrant would cross the sea. Much as I dislike mass immigration, I’d admit: the immigrants should not be blamed, but their importers in the government and business.

In Israel, too: the Africans move into South Tel Aviv, where poor Jews lived. The poor Jews complained and they are being called “racists”, while wealthy Jews of North Tel Aviv (who allowed the Africans to come) can condemn racism of the poor Jews from a safe distance.

ORDER IT NOW

Immigration (like terrorism or rifles) is a misleading culprit. Rifles do not kill: people do. Immigrants will come only if the people of power will allow them, for their purpose. Immigrants are a tool in the hands of neo-liberals. People who blame immigrants are people of limited intelligence, and such people can be duped easily. This is exactly what happened with the Deplorables of Netherlands. The right-wing VVD party stole the protesting electorate of Geert Wilders as easily as yob Tim wrests a sweet out of a little Minnie’s hand.

At that time, the Turks of Netherlands (that is the Turks who kept their Turkish citizenship, a biggish community of about 400 000) were supposed to vote on changes in Turkish constitution. A Turkish minister flew in to speak to his fellow-citizens and mobilise them to vote in a certain way. In usual circumstances, this would pass unnoticed. Every day a migrant community discusses their migrant affairs. The Kurds demand their Kurdish state, the Moroccans argue for the Western Sahara; Syrians for Islam fight Syrians for Assad. So there would be an additional argument: whether Erdogan should be allowed to declare an emergency or not.

But the Right-wing (VVD) Party had to show to the Deplorables that they are every inch as awful to Turks and Muslims as Geert Wilders is, and even worse (or better), for they have power, while Wilders hasn’t got it. They refused the Turkish jet its landing request, and sent another Turkish minister out of Holland. The Turks went to protest, and the Dutch police attacked Turkish demo with ferocious German shepherd dogs.

Potential Wilders voters were ecstatic. They did not care about Erdogan, but they were happy that the Muslim ministers were kicked out of Holland and the dogs were set upon the Turks. The Far Right calls to expel the Muslims, we actually do it – that was the VVD subliminal slogan. And it worked. Despite expectations, the VVD won, the Far Right party of Geert Wilders showed a small gain, but the Labour Party (PvdA) had lost the elections completely. This party disintegrated. Some part of their electorate went to a more radical left party, but majority just left in disgust.

The Dutch establishment had managed to trump the Trump Revolution. Wilders remained in the political desert, Labour collapsed, the centre-right forces will remain at power. The voters clearly wanted a change; they refused neo-liberalism and globalisation, but they will get it anyway as a payment for being nasty to the Turks.

The correct conclusion from the Dutch elections is that the Left should move further to the left and part company with the liberal right, if it still wants to be an independent power.

 

The French elections began from the point at which the Dutch ended: the disintegration of the Socialist Party. Nothing to regret: that party became a twin of the liberal Right and pursued the same sort of policies. The Socialists annoyed workers by their anti-worker laws penned by Macron, they annoyed the Catholics by forcing gay marriage laws. A Socialist candidate got 6 per cent of the vote in the first round.

The leftist cause has been saved by Melenchon. Not only did he do well in the first round, but he even refused to support Macron in the second round. It would be better if he were to openly support Marine LePen, but probably that would be too hard for French Left.

As things are, a French leftist has no choice but to vote for LePen. Le Pen is not Geert Wilders, she is not a single cause person. She has strong Communist support. She is not an ideal candidate for the Left, but beggars can’t be choosers.

If she wins, the Revolution started by Trump’s election will continue. If she fails, we’ll be back to square one. The surprise win of Trump will have been wasted. The people in power learned their lesson.

Perhaps now the Left-vs.-Right division is irrelevant; what is relevant is the attitude to globalism and neo-liberalism. Perhaps. Theoretically I can agree. We could say that perhaps Bannon will do better than Trotsky. But now we see that the anti-globalist right is failing its promise. Bannon is out, and Trump is not sure whether he will send Mrs Janet Yellen of FRS home packing. So this is the time for the Left to attack the bastion of the bankers and their ilk.

The anti-globalist right will not disappear anyway; a rejuvenated Left of Lenin’s sons should consider them as possible allies. However, revolutions succeed when they are led by decisive and thoroughly men, and such men can emerge on both sides of the political spectrum.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: France, Neoliberalism, Netherlands, The Left 
Hide 334 CommentsLeave a Comment
334 Comments to "Facing Aurora"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. wayfarer says:

    Communism ideology, just another soulless philosophical, social, political, and economic train wreck, that’s done nothing more than to help litter humanity’s pathetic history.

    Read More
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @76daze
    "Nothing matches the Holocaust for pure evil", asserts a Jew!

    You must be a boomer to post this Prager U drivel.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Because communism began among jews, is my idea.
    They were the only poor people in tzarist Russia who could read and write.
    Only in 1939 Stalin fired his jewish foreign secretary, replaced him with Molotov, in order to strike a deal with Von Ribbentrop.
    , @The Scalpel
    And those nasty communists firebombed major population centers and dropped nuclear weapons on major cities. Or something like that
    , @Ivan
    Communists have the better press. As you can gauge from the clowns posting here.
    , @Joe Wong
    The Five-Eyes and its minions are where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of the very madness of colonialsim, of the crusades and the slave trade. Cathedrads and palaces, museums and theatres, train stations - all had been construted on horrid foundations of those hundreds of millions' bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of pluder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the 'Western existence and culture' something that gets almost never addressed, let alone critized.

    Comparing the crimes against humanity committed by the communism and Nazism with the Five-Eyes and its minions, it is like a child play.
    , @Thales the Milesian
    Communism is bad!

    Nazism is bad!

    Nice try Mr. Wayfarer.

    Now tell us what happened to the Native Americans, the African slaves, the Congolese under the Belgians?

    How about the Vietnamese, the Laotians and Cambodians?

    How many people have been killed with Democracy bombs in Central Asia and the Middle East?

    I am sure, Mr. Prager resides in a glass house.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /ishamir/facing-aurora/#comment-1857924
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Alden says:

    The left can be summed up in 3 words Mr Shamir, Anti White Racism.

    The left is totally anti worker. The left totally absolutely anti worker. The left is a coalition of Wall Street White collar criminal billionaires, street criminals, welfare parasites and perverts.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    In America leftists call workers deplorables.

    The communists who slaughtered, massacred and starved Russians after November 1917 belonged to the very same ethnic group that looted Russia after 1991.

    Well, I’ve always said that the mind of a liberal is like a sink. Every few years mind control central pulls the plug, drains out the current cause, turns on the faucet and fills the empty vessel with the latest cause.

    Do you all ever look at your selves? Obviously not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Morgan Philips Price (edited Tania Rose), ‘Dispatches from the Weimar Republic, Versailles and German Fascism’, London 1999

    The book contains observations of travel by train through the Ukraine, where on each railway station desperate Ukrainian farmers, evicted from their farms, tried to sell possessions they had been able to take with them, in order to buy food.
    , @jilles dykstra
    No.
    Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.
    After 1991 there were very few jews in Russia, Stalin did not like them.
    They left in large numbers for Israel.
    As Shamir's parents did.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.
     
    Lol. Anti-communism really is a mind disease.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.
     
    All personally shot by Stalin. /s
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.
     
    Actually, it was half a billion but KGB (FSB) has a secret facility where it keeps all those secret documents. It is said that this facility is under Lenin's mausoleum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I am very sorry that the Counterpunch, a publication I liked and wrote for many years (admittedly, in Alex Cockburn’s days), has succumbed to that disease.

    I understand what you are saying about Counterpunch. I gave up on the magazine back in December, when I read this monstrosity:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/30/why-white-genocide-is-key-to-the-earths-survival-white-genocide-from-baldwin-to-ciccariello-maher/

    The opening few words of the piece say it all: “White genocide would not only be good, it is necessary and even unavoidable…” The author then proceeds to explain that “white genocide” doesn’t really mean what you and I think it means… Give me a break.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    What the fuck. I just read that article. How Is that able to be published and not be called what it is? If a white person were to say anything close to that in public , the person would be murdered within a week, not to mention it wouldnt be published anywhere other then a persons personal blog. If white people as a whole dont start to open their eyes and see whats coming, we wont be here for much longer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    So we to understand, are we, that leftism equates with Leninist-Stalinist tyranny, the secret police, slave labor, the gulag, and genocidal purges, whereas populism, representing the interests of the common people, is rightism?

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Israel Shamir
    We are to understand that "Leninist-Stalinist tyranny" is populism. What could people wish more than to send some of its enemies to Gulag?
    , @Ivan
    A true leftist, ie, one who identifies with the problems of the poor and powerless, George Orwell, saw the Soviet Union of his time for the horror it was. Communists as usual make a big play of humanity and electrification when it wins them something. They themselves merely wish to replace the current set of oppressors with worse oppression of their own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. The Russian revolution was in early 1917, what Lenin with his bolsjewists did in november 1917 was a coup, destroying Russian democracy, until 1990 or so.

    Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), ‘The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)’, New York 1955

    Hellmut Andics, ‘Rule of terror, Russia under Lenin and Stalin’, New York, 1969 (Vienna, 1967)

    Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘Lenin’, 1998, 2001, New York

    Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’, 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
    This book exposes Wall Street support for Lenin, in order to prevent German economic relations with the USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The so-called 'Russian revolution of March 1917' was a kind of anticipation of 'colored revolutions'. The bourgeoisie and the office of Russia deposed the Tsar in the hope of obtaining American funding to carry on the war. The Russian Provisional Government was a fragile and inept arrangement, which could not last long.
    Even if the war were to end in the summer of 1917, the inept provisional government would still be deposed, even if not by the Bolsheviks, and Russia would live a bloody dictatorship led by Kornilov, Kolchak, or Denikin.
    The Bolsheviks did not seize power in March because their top leaders were in exile.
    , @Alden
    Of course, there were 2 revolutions, one in February and the one in October. The October one was O Holy Night, that glorious night, the night mankind was saved from itself, when Lenin and his well paid mob took over the Duma. I guess you assume you are the only person who knows that.

    AND another thing I hate about commies liberals and Jews is the way they assume that they are the only ones who know anything. The 2 revolutions are explained in every book ever written about the Russisn revolution.

    And you even put in links in case us dumb ignorant deplorable proles wanted proof of something we learned in freshman year of high school social studies aka world history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Alden
    The left can be summed up in 3 words Mr Shamir, Anti White Racism.

    The left is totally anti worker. The left totally absolutely anti worker. The left is a coalition of Wall Street White collar criminal billionaires, street criminals, welfare parasites and perverts.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    In America leftists call workers deplorables.

    The communists who slaughtered, massacred and starved Russians after November 1917 belonged to the very same ethnic group that looted Russia after 1991.

    Well, I've always said that the mind of a liberal is like a sink. Every few years mind control central pulls the plug, drains out the current cause, turns on the faucet and fills the empty vessel with the latest cause.

    Do you all ever look at your selves? Obviously not.

    Morgan Philips Price (edited Tania Rose), ‘Dispatches from the Weimar Republic, Versailles and German Fascism’, London 1999

    The book contains observations of travel by train through the Ukraine, where on each railway station desperate Ukrainian farmers, evicted from their farms, tried to sell possessions they had been able to take with them, in order to buy food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Russian apologists are in a bind. To acknowledge that forced collectivisation caused the multi-million deaths in the Ukraine, would be giving aid and comfort to the Banderists. Truth as is usual with the Communists, is mere expediency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Alden
    The left can be summed up in 3 words Mr Shamir, Anti White Racism.

    The left is totally anti worker. The left totally absolutely anti worker. The left is a coalition of Wall Street White collar criminal billionaires, street criminals, welfare parasites and perverts.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    In America leftists call workers deplorables.

    The communists who slaughtered, massacred and starved Russians after November 1917 belonged to the very same ethnic group that looted Russia after 1991.

    Well, I've always said that the mind of a liberal is like a sink. Every few years mind control central pulls the plug, drains out the current cause, turns on the faucet and fills the empty vessel with the latest cause.

    Do you all ever look at your selves? Obviously not.

    No.
    Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.
    After 1991 there were very few jews in Russia, Stalin did not like them.
    They left in large numbers for Israel.
    As Shamir’s parents did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    The (leftist) Jewish love-hate relationship with the Soviet Union can be summarised as follows.

    1917-25
    -Dawn of new humanity.
    -Anti-war heroes (Brest-Litovsk).
    -Revenge for hundred pogroms, murder of the Royal Family etc.
    -destruction of the Russian native intelligentsia, clerical leadership, painful but
    necessary for the rise of the proletariat represented by themselves etc, etc.

    1926-1940
    -Communism in one country? Big mistake.
    -Trotsky will surely come back with internationalism
    -Stalin is an antisemite
    -Maybe we went a bit too far

    1941-1947
    -Stalin, hero of anti-fascist resistance
    -Stalin, hero of true Zionism
    -We had good jobs with the Comintern
    -We had to clean out the remaining fascists in Eastern Europe

    1948-1953
    -Stalin chews slowly.

    1954-1967
    -The Soviet Union is no longer the hope of the working class

    1968-present
    -Russia; we hardly knew you
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.
     
    No, they were not. Othervise - go and prove your ballsy claim

    After 1991 there were very few jews in Russia, Stalin did not like them.
     
    Because they fucking buggered off via emigration once given a chance - either to Israel (not that many), Europe (even less) or to America (Canada and the US - the vast majority). Stalin has nothing to do with that. Remember, Alyssa Rosenbaum (future Ayn Rand) emigrated in 1930s - during Stalin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. The Left abandoned the working classes long before the fall of the Soviet Union. In the USA and UK, the Left never forgave the native working classes for repeatedly electing Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher respectively. They switched their allegiance to the welfare-dependent underclass, racial minorities, and immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You may well e right in your analysis but it looks unstable. Immigrants, and indeed racial minorities -with the exception of African-Americanx - can be expected to be upwardly mobile. And this is not something any moderately intelligent politician is going to ignote. To them the rational qiestion is just " where do I get my votes from to grt elected?".
    , @Priss Factor
    "The Left abandoned the working classes long before the fall of the Soviet Union. In the USA and UK, the Left never forgave the native working classes for repeatedly electing Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher respectively."

    I don't think that was the real reason.

    If the working class had remained a powerful force, then things would have been different.

    But long before the rise of Reagan and Thatcher, the working class was increasingly becoming less powerful as white collar sector expanded. Also, innovation and international trade(promoted by the business class) cut into worker power and big labor. Consider the New Left in France, a nation where many workers continued to vote for the Communist Party. Even so, the New Left abandoned the declining working class and took up new causes.

    By the 90s rolled around, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton just didn't see a lot of power or promise in big labor. They saw that the power had shifted to the Business Class. So, they threw their lot in with the globalists. The partnership of Big Money and Progressive Politics was only natural. Big Money had cash but lacked moral credentials. Progressives has moral capital(due to Civil Rights Movement and resistance to imperialism) but were short on funds. So, Big Money got benediction from the Progs, and Progs got funding from Big Money.

    Just think. If the Liberal Elites gave up on the workers because they voted for Thatcher/Reagan, why did they collaborate with Big Money that had supported Reagan and Thatcher?

    And look at the USSR. There, the workers had no choice but to support communism. But the Soviet elites decided to sink the whole system and create a new one because the world had turned post-industrial and they wanted a piece of the globalist-pie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @CanSpeccy
    So we to understand, are we, that leftism equates with Leninist-Stalinist tyranny, the secret police, slave labor, the gulag, and genocidal purges, whereas populism, representing the interests of the common people, is rightism?

    We are to understand that “Leninist-Stalinist tyranny” is populism. What could people wish more than to send some of its enemies to Gulag?

    Read More
    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    We are to understand that “Leninist-Stalinist tyranny” is populism. What could people wish more than to send some of its enemies to Gulag?
     
    You mean those blue-collar Americans who lost decent jobs in the great off-shoring, really are deplorables, "racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic." are really just a bunch of whining Nazis.

    With your help and Fred Reed's among others, the point of Unz.com begins to come into focus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Alden
    The left can be summed up in 3 words Mr Shamir, Anti White Racism.

    The left is totally anti worker. The left totally absolutely anti worker. The left is a coalition of Wall Street White collar criminal billionaires, street criminals, welfare parasites and perverts.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    In America leftists call workers deplorables.

    The communists who slaughtered, massacred and starved Russians after November 1917 belonged to the very same ethnic group that looted Russia after 1991.

    Well, I've always said that the mind of a liberal is like a sink. Every few years mind control central pulls the plug, drains out the current cause, turns on the faucet and fills the empty vessel with the latest cause.

    Do you all ever look at your selves? Obviously not.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    Lol. Anti-communism really is a mind disease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    If you disagree with Alden's comment kindly provide a helpful counter-argument. "lol" is not an argument.
    , @druid
    20 million!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. This article is meant as some sort of parody, right?

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Lenin and Stalin solved all their problems by cutting the Gordian knot of greed. They modernised their country, they gave people hope,
     
    I got that far

    I think you're right
    , @Ivan
    Seems like it. Though with Mr Shamir it is hard to tell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Left is fine as long as it is neo-national.

    Left, Right, Up, and Down are all okay as long as they are neo-national.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. They modernised their country, they gave people hope, they offered a choice for the workers.

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.

    The capitalists did not despair in 1917, the communists should not despair in 2017. It seems that there is no other way, no shortcut: the world needs new Lenins and Stalins.

    I hope all further such experiments are carried out in the US. Or Sweden. Or Israel. But not Russia.

    As things are, a French leftist has no choice but to vote for LePen. Le Pen is not Geert Wilders, she is not a single cause person. She has strong Communist support.

    12% of Melenchon voters say they’re going to vote for Le Pen out of the other candidates – that’s just a bit higher than the percentage of Bernie supporters who defected to Trump.

    It would be nice if the Alt Left was to become a thing, but realistically, its a fringe movement and will probably remain so.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Sergey Krieger
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.
     
    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and "Russia Which We Lost" is a complete baloney--by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html

    But by far more impressive, however, is the report of Russian Medical Society on the state of child mortality in Russia (circa 1909)--a very long report and an eye-opening one. Russia paid way more in "violent deaths" in WW I and Civil War than any GULAG (most of it figment of imagination by Solzh) could have ever achieved.

    P.S. There is an interesting book from 1912 by Milyukov "Russia And Her Current Crisis" (from 1910 IIRC) in English, I believe Chicago University Press edition, at least I had this one. Highly recommended.

    , @Lyttenburgh

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.
     
    It was hardly happening at all, as it was happening on several orders of magnitude lesser scale.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. jim jones says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Alden
    The left can be summed up in 3 words Mr Shamir, Anti White Racism.

    The left is totally anti worker. The left totally absolutely anti worker. The left is a coalition of Wall Street White collar criminal billionaires, street criminals, welfare parasites and perverts.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    In America leftists call workers deplorables.

    The communists who slaughtered, massacred and starved Russians after November 1917 belonged to the very same ethnic group that looted Russia after 1991.

    Well, I've always said that the mind of a liberal is like a sink. Every few years mind control central pulls the plug, drains out the current cause, turns on the faucet and fills the empty vessel with the latest cause.

    Do you all ever look at your selves? Obviously not.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    All personally shot by Stalin. /s

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Given the stage was set by Stalin, it could be said that Stalin killed them. I can, however, understand why you wouldn't like that fact. Stalin may be gone, but a chekist is still in charge in Russia.
    , @Alden
    Actually,Lenin began exterminating non communists within days of his arrival in Moscow. And it didn't stop until Stalin's death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. What a ridiculous article.

    Lenin a progressive force!?!

    The world needs more populism? Populism is a strategy, not a programm.

    French Leftist need to vote LePen? Not necessarily.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Lenin may have meant to furher progress.
    On his death bed he tried to prevent that Stalin was his successor.
    As with most revolutions or coups, progress took a long time to become visible.
    The average income per head in tzarist Russia in 1905, writing from memory, was just re established at the end of the thirties.
    Nothing special, in the Dutch Indies the 1940 level was reached again in the seventies Indonesia.
    Very expensive, revolutions and coups.
    Our Dutch Troelstra in 1918 was a wise man, during ten days in 1918 he had the chance for revoluion, he chose slow improvement, it succeeded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. 76daze says:
    @wayfarer
    Communism ideology, just another soulless philosophical, social, political, and economic train wreck, that's done nothing more than to help litter humanity's pathetic history.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

    “Nothing matches the Holocaust for pure evil”, asserts a Jew!

    You must be a boomer to post this Prager U drivel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @wayfarer
    Thanks for calling me on this, 76daze.

    I posted the video without much thought, hoping to shed some light on the virulent communist ANTIFA movement.

    Was completely unaware of PragerU, had never heard of them. But on further investigation I've come to the conclusion that they've got a toxic agenda in mind for America.

    I now regret having posted a propaganda product from PragerU. It was a careless mistake. Unfortunately at this point, the video can't be removed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @wayfarer
    Communism ideology, just another soulless philosophical, social, political, and economic train wreck, that's done nothing more than to help litter humanity's pathetic history.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

    Because communism began among jews, is my idea.
    They were the only poor people in tzarist Russia who could read and write.
    Only in 1939 Stalin fired his jewish foreign secretary, replaced him with Molotov, in order to strike a deal with Von Ribbentrop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Tzarist government instituted mass free public schools after 1866. College and high school were free. Conscripts in the WW1 Russian army had a higher literacy rate than conscripts in the WW1 American army because of mass education in Russia.

    Unfortunately the school teachers became revolutionaries. How can you say Jews were the only poor people who could read and write when your hero was public school superintendent of an entire province in charge of thousands of free elementary and high schools?
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Because communism began among jews, is my idea.
     
    Not true. You are a liar, userperson "jilles dykstra".

    Only in 1939 Stalin fired his jewish foreign secretary, replaced him with Molotov, in order to strike a deal with Von Ribbentrop.
     
    The reasons for the dismissal of Litvinov has nothing to do with him being a Jew. He was too pro-British and his attempts to forge an alliance with the so-called "Western Democracies" failed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. the legendary cruiser whose thundering salvo over the Winter Palace had started the Russian Revolution in November 1917

    Mr. Shamir, Sir! Seeing as you (SOMEHOW!) became an expert on Russian history, can I (a Russian from Russia) ask you – what did disqualify the FEBRUARY REVOLUTION OF 1917 from the title of the “Russian Revolution”? Was it Guchkov’s participation? Or the fact that so-called “Romanov’s” dynasty were not ethnically Russian enough? What? WHAT?! Pray, tell us!

    Recently I participated in a conference commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in the Mirror of World Left Movement, in St Petersburg, the City of the Revolution, attended by representatives of European socialist parties.

    Cut the rhetoric – what was the name of your conference where you, arguably, did participate, and how about a link?

    They took away all the achievements of the workers, and created this new world of immense wealth for a few and growing misery for the rest.

    […]

    Greed should be defeated again, media and factories have to be taken away from the owners. Not only minimal, but a maximal income should be legislated.

    I’m not a nice person, so I gonna ask anyway – have you ever, Israel Shamir, work with your arms? Not just on a dacha – like for real? What about serving in the Army, btw?

    Work with dignity for workers – this populist slogan gave Trump his entry ticket in the White House.

    No. More the fact, that HRC’s cyborg’s body short-circuited in public…

    Lenin promised to give land to farmers, factories to workers, peace to nations

    He made no such promises. At. All.

    1) It promised – and delivered – the Land to the Peasant Community (Not Farmers, ‘cause farmers = kulaks and fuck them)

    2) It promised “Peace to the People” (not “nations”) and delivered – in the form of the Brest-Litovsk

    3) It promised fabrics to the workers – and delivered! Factories (ALL of them) were nationalized, and the control was transferred to the working Collectives.

    People now want to be sure of their tomorrows, they want their children to study, they want to have free medical care and affordable, good housing; they want freedom and safety. They want to regain all that was lost after 1991. And if for this purpose some bankers should be retired to the wall at Dawn, so be it.

    Mr. Shamir, are you talking about Russia or America?

    No more Mister Nice Guy, this is the first commandment for the Left’s comeback. The Left should part its ways with the liberals.

    Uhm, when it was with them?

    Sometimes I am ashamed of belonging to the Left.

    You shouldn’t be! You are not.

    Ask a man on the street, what do the leftists strive for, and he will tell you: these are the good people who support good causes. Transgender toilets, gay marriages, women for CEOs, Syrian refugees, climate change, access for the handicapped, perhaps unemployment benefits.

    That’s not what Russians answer when asked about the “Left”. I suggest, Mr. Shamir, for you to cut your international travel. For the sake of the Sanity.

    This is really an insult. A Jewish nationalist like Mr Foxman can’t be a leftist. Stalin would have sent him to the Far North-East of Siberia

    Leftists are not against “white Christian majority population,” as Gottfried claims. Leftists are for the working class majority.

    FINALLY! Someone of piss-ridden UNZ dared to say it! ARRRRRRGH!

    Let Russia be our sister-state. And the last thing I want is unity with Feffer.

    Wait a sec… aren’t you a fellow Russian citizen as well?.. Then WTF this masquerade?

    Fefferite unity for all brought us to this place: the Left is dying

    It’s dead. In the Pindostan.

    The anti-Liberal Right is not a viable alternative, alas. The recent Dutch elections on March 15 proved that point.

    I’m too lazy at the moment to find a “slowpoke” pokemon pic for you. Google it yourself.

    I wonder whether you followed these elections, the most interesting and most important event coming out of Netherlands since the Glorious Revolution.

    1) Glorious Revolution took place on the clay of bloody Limeyes

    2) Operation Market Garden was… interesting. It happened later.

    It was impossible to predict how the Dutch would vote.

    No-ope!

    The Trump effect, people said darkly, and hinted that the Dutch would vote for their own Trump, called Geert Wilders.
    The guess was quite a reasonable one.

    No. They were imbeciles. Countries with no independent foreign policy will be, forgive me, eternally cucked! Ergo – the result here. Ergo – the results in France and Germany to come!

    The Deplorables could vote for the old-style Left, as these unemployed or precariously employed men were dispossessed by the rich and powerful. But the present-day-Left (PvdA) did not care for them. The Left enjoyed its alliance with the liberal elite, with Jewish and Jewified financiers and media; tolerance (meaning priority for minority), cultural Marxism (it is not even a relation of real class-based red-tooth Marxism), elitism were of greater importance for them than the blue-collar workers to whom they felt little affinity.

    Okay, Mr Shamir! You just managed to steal what Russian Left was claiming for over a decade, and present as your own thought. Applause? Unlikely. Pindosy (who are you prime readers) won’t appreciate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Sebastian Puettmann
    What a ridiculous article.

    Lenin a progressive force!?!

    The world needs more populism? Populism is a strategy, not a programm.

    French Leftist need to vote LePen? Not necessarily.

    Lenin may have meant to furher progress.
    On his death bed he tried to prevent that Stalin was his successor.
    As with most revolutions or coups, progress took a long time to become visible.
    The average income per head in tzarist Russia in 1905, writing from memory, was just re established at the end of the thirties.
    Nothing special, in the Dutch Indies the 1940 level was reached again in the seventies Indonesia.
    Very expensive, revolutions and coups.
    Our Dutch Troelstra in 1918 was a wise man, during ten days in 1918 he had the chance for revoluion, he chose slow improvement, it succeeded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    2-3% growth which ministers of the type of Stolypin or Witte could easily have delivered while making the rounds of bordellos, would easily have put the Russians in the same class as the Japanese, without shedding an once of blood. They would have done even better given their natural endowments in water, land, energy resources and minerals. But that is too inconvenient for the bloody communist fools to accept. So they have to talk of Tsarist oppression and the indolence of the aristocracy, as though things were any different with the mass of the aristocrats elsewhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Thank you! A much needed article. Because of those effed up CIA brainwashed identity trolls, the Left has lost its appeal. But I am still open with my opinions and people now say I am right-wing. So be it, I don’t care.

    The problem probably is that the liberals and self-proclaimed progressives see themselves as left. Idiots!

    You’re spot on, Israel!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Anatoly Karlin

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.
     
    All personally shot by Stalin. /s

    Given the stage was set by Stalin, it could be said that Stalin killed them. I can, however, understand why you wouldn’t like that fact. Stalin may be gone, but a chekist is still in charge in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I am sarcastically referring to the propagandistic inflated figures of 200 million Communist victims.

    I have no patience for pro-Soviet BS, nor any patience for its flip side - anti-Soviet BS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Anatoly Karlin

    They modernised their country, they gave people hope, they offered a choice for the workers.
     
    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.

    The capitalists did not despair in 1917, the communists should not despair in 2017. It seems that there is no other way, no shortcut: the world needs new Lenins and Stalins.
     
    I hope all further such experiments are carried out in the US. Or Sweden. Or Israel. But not Russia.

    As things are, a French leftist has no choice but to vote for LePen. Le Pen is not Geert Wilders, she is not a single cause person. She has strong Communist support.
     
    12% of Melenchon voters say they're going to vote for Le Pen out of the other candidates - that's just a bit higher than the percentage of Bernie supporters who defected to Trump.

    It would be nice if the Alt Left was to become a thing, but realistically, its a fringe movement and will probably remain so.

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.

    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and “Russia Which We Lost” is a complete baloney–by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html

    But by far more impressive, however, is the report of Russian Medical Society on the state of child mortality in Russia (circa 1909)–a very long report and an eye-opening one. Russia paid way more in “violent deaths” in WW I and Civil War than any GULAG (most of it figment of imagination by Solzh) could have ever achieved.

    P.S. There is an interesting book from 1912 by Milyukov “Russia And Her Current Crisis” (from 1910 IIRC) in English, I believe Chicago University Press edition, at least I had this one. Highly recommended.

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I have never claimed that Imperial Russia wasn't economically backwards. The "Russia Which We Lost" (in my observation mostly a strawman pushed by Communists than something in which many people actually believe) doesn't apply to me. I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/genby/30544598/789677/789677_original.png

    Russian infant mortality remained very high through to the 1940s - in fact, there was no improvement between the last years of RI, and 1940. Those improvements, if anything delayed, had nothing to do with anything specific to the USSR and everything to with the general improvements in antibiotics and obstetrics that you saw in industrializing countries. There was however something genuinely specific to the USSR - it was one of the only industrialized nations where infant mortality rose for years and years on end, from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Agree 100 percent. Frankly, it is hard to imagine what would happen with Russia without October 1917. No wonder majority senses it despite decades of brainwahing. Civil war bloodshed was started by white movement supported by Western powers.
    , @Ivan
    Your type of counterfactual analyses are a dime a dozen. Given sufficient capital, labour and resources , much of which Russia had, industrialisation was inevitable. It just required a certain direction, which the Tsarists could have easily provided by appointing a few competent men.
    , @AP

    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and “Russia Which We Lost” is a complete baloney–by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html
     
    The information from the blog post you link to is taken from the work of this weirdo, "a Soviet-born Russian-Canadian scholar and political writer. He is a member of the organizations «Freedom From Religion Foundation» and «Defend Science» (US)...Battler describes himself as a follower of the Marxist-Leninist teaching. Battler also authored the 13 commandments of the roslyane, which he promotes as a replacement for the well-known Biblical commandments. In Battler's theory the roslyane are the people who should emerge in Russia after the current system is replaced."

    The chart in the beginning of the article shows that Russia had already eclipsed France in steel production and railroads. But it is merely a snapshot. Much better is to look at the change in industrialization from 1880 to 1913.

    Here is a nice chart

    Between 1880 and 1913 Russia's coal and pig iron production increased about 10x and its oil production increased 20x. In the 1890s Russia had the highest industrial growth rate in the world.

    Russia "fell behind" only in per capita terms - because Russia had a TFR in 1900 of 7.5 - highest in the world! Rapid population growth and expansion surpassed even its stunning industrial and economic growth, compared to western European countries. If tsarist-level fertility continued for another two generations there would be hundreds of millions of Russians.

    If my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia’s actual “proletariat”, that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia’s population
     
    Sorry, your memory has failed you in this case.

    http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/labour_russian_empire

    At the start of World War I about 15 million Russians worked in factories, construction, railroads, and mines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Stalin’s crimes are well documented. There is one mitigating circumstance though:
    Stalin killed Jewish revolutionaries, that’s why the Jewish left hates him. The same people tend to excuse Trotsky, who was far more destructive and dangerous individual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Hence the confusion: was Stalin really a bad guy since he had defeated Hitler?
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Stalin’s crimes are well documented.
     
    Which crimes? No idea what you are talking about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @James N. Kennett
    The Left abandoned the working classes long before the fall of the Soviet Union. In the USA and UK, the Left never forgave the native working classes for repeatedly electing Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher respectively. They switched their allegiance to the welfare-dependent underclass, racial minorities, and immigrants.

    You may well e right in your analysis but it looks unstable. Immigrants, and indeed racial minorities -with the exception of African-Americanx – can be expected to be upwardly mobile. And this is not something any moderately intelligent politician is going to ignote. To them the rational qiestion is just ” where do I get my votes from to grt elected?”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Alden says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.
     
    All personally shot by Stalin. /s

    Actually,Lenin began exterminating non communists within days of his arrival in Moscow. And it didn’t stop until Stalin’s death.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Who were promptly replaced by the upcoming children of the proletariat. Hence the natural diffidence to look with clear eyes at the genocidal bloodshed that preceded their rise. Hell, even Putin is prepared to accept that Uncle Joe was a mass murderer of historic proportions, when he compared his place in Russian history with that of Oliver Cromwell. But the true believers have to think that the Gulag was some kind of Russian joke from Solzhenitysn. Their bones should have been in it, as written somewhere in the Gulag Archipelago.

    Some kind soul has uploaded the three volumes of the Gulag Archipelago onto archive.org.
    Please do not under any circumstances read the abridged book version.

    https://archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Actually,Lenin began exterminating non communists within days of his arrival in Moscow. And it didn’t stop until Stalin’s death.
     
    Source. Or. GTFO.

    It might surprise you, but - no, he didn't. There was an attempt of the counter-revolutionary coup in Moscow (and it happen without Lening in the city) which was dealt with. Besides, the vast majority of the population were not (yet) members of the Communist Party. Following your logic, Boskheviks must have exterminated about 90% of Moscow's population. Which didn't happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Rurik says:
    @Maxim Amplikov
    This article is meant as some sort of parody, right?

    Lenin and Stalin solved all their problems by cutting the Gordian knot of greed. They modernised their country, they gave people hope,

    I got that far

    I think you’re right

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Alden says:

    Shamir is against abortion because it murders unborn babies. Yet he worships Lenin, the Cheka, Trotsky, Mao, Chou en Lai and their minions who massacred 200 million of their own citizens.

    That’s as hypocritical as vegetarians who are pro abortion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Shamir is against abortion because it murders unborn babies. Yet he worships Lenin, the Cheka, Trotsky, Mao, Chou en Lai and their minions who massacred 200 million of their own citizens.
     
    StronK Kool Aid you are drinking here, userperson "Alden". Source about 200 millions, plox?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Stalin may be gone, but a chekist is still in charge in Russia.

    If only…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Because communism began among jews, is my idea.
    They were the only poor people in tzarist Russia who could read and write.
    Only in 1939 Stalin fired his jewish foreign secretary, replaced him with Molotov, in order to strike a deal with Von Ribbentrop.

    The Tzarist government instituted mass free public schools after 1866. College and high school were free. Conscripts in the WW1 Russian army had a higher literacy rate than conscripts in the WW1 American army because of mass education in Russia.

    Unfortunately the school teachers became revolutionaries. How can you say Jews were the only poor people who could read and write when your hero was public school superintendent of an entire province in charge of thousands of free elementary and high schools?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Unfortunately the school teachers became revolutionaries.
     
    Oh boy, I wonder why? Maybe they read too much Chekhov? You know, his Van'ka (Zhukov) and how he wrote the letter to his grandad in village;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Andrei Martyanov

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.
     
    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and "Russia Which We Lost" is a complete baloney--by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html

    But by far more impressive, however, is the report of Russian Medical Society on the state of child mortality in Russia (circa 1909)--a very long report and an eye-opening one. Russia paid way more in "violent deaths" in WW I and Civil War than any GULAG (most of it figment of imagination by Solzh) could have ever achieved.

    P.S. There is an interesting book from 1912 by Milyukov "Russia And Her Current Crisis" (from 1910 IIRC) in English, I believe Chicago University Press edition, at least I had this one. Highly recommended.

    I have never claimed that Imperial Russia wasn’t economically backwards. The “Russia Which We Lost” (in my observation mostly a strawman pushed by Communists than something in which many people actually believe) doesn’t apply to me. I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.

    Russian infant mortality remained very high through to the 1940s – in fact, there was no improvement between the last years of RI, and 1940. Those improvements, if anything delayed, had nothing to do with anything specific to the USSR and everything to with the general improvements in antibiotics and obstetrics that you saw in industrializing countries. There was however something genuinely specific to the USSR – it was one of the only industrialized nations where infant mortality rose for years and years on end, from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.
     
    Highly doubtful for a number of external and internal factors. Russia was "pregnant" (per Sobolev) with revolution and WW I played a crucial role in unleashing it. WW I was this very pain which did it. With it, the old Russia of Tzars was done, no matter what spin is put on the events of February 1917 coup. To propose "if" scenario for "more rapidly" and "with less pain" under the conditions of WW I and forces it created is not reasonable at all. The peasant question remained unsolved in Russia until collectivization and even after that only partially. In the end, Bolsheviks won an ultimate victory (from a dramatic disadvantage) in Civil War over the very forces, as you imply, which would have provided this very "more rapid" and "less painful" development. The outcome of a Civil War puts it under tremendous doubt. Consider also the fact of those forces being supported by half-the-world and still losing it. This speaks volumes about abilities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of those people. The rise of German national-socialism was predetermined as was predetermined the loss of this hypothetical "non-Bolshevik" Russia in WW II which would come one way or another. In fact, that "Russia" would have been utterly crushed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Alden
    The left can be summed up in 3 words Mr Shamir, Anti White Racism.

    The left is totally anti worker. The left totally absolutely anti worker. The left is a coalition of Wall Street White collar criminal billionaires, street criminals, welfare parasites and perverts.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    In America leftists call workers deplorables.

    The communists who slaughtered, massacred and starved Russians after November 1917 belonged to the very same ethnic group that looted Russia after 1991.

    Well, I've always said that the mind of a liberal is like a sink. Every few years mind control central pulls the plug, drains out the current cause, turns on the faucet and fills the empty vessel with the latest cause.

    Do you all ever look at your selves? Obviously not.

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.

    Actually, it was half a billion but KGB (FSB) has a secret facility where it keeps all those secret documents. It is said that this facility is under Lenin’s mausoleum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Quartermaster
    Given the stage was set by Stalin, it could be said that Stalin killed them. I can, however, understand why you wouldn't like that fact. Stalin may be gone, but a chekist is still in charge in Russia.

    I am sarcastically referring to the propagandistic inflated figures of 200 million Communist victims.

    I have no patience for pro-Soviet BS, nor any patience for its flip side – anti-Soviet BS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Good article but I sense desperation. Anfortunately Western socialism sold it’s soul long before 1991. Lenin saved the Left and turned their into practise. Now it was squandered and considering people of Lenin and Stalin caliber are not coming often we are stuck with analitics who analyze but don’t act as Giants did. Unfortunatelly suffering inflicted by capitalists will have to reach new highs untill most of the people get it and new Giants appear. Right now people are atomized and disunited. The question of what is to be done is again here. There is no secret of course. We often hear that revolution are caused by Jews, bankers, intelligence services and other outside influence. This is of course nonsense. Every revolution or uprising has local origin and causes. However without progressive organized force in thele place the thing is just a headless chicken which can be led in any direction and used by ulterior forces. This is exactly what has been happening in recent years. I am talking so called color revolution. In 1917 there was Bolsheviks party with Lenin which took masses in right direction and in 40+ years Soviet Russia was sending rockets into space and had other equally great things. We also have Maidan where revolution was highjacked by outside forces in absence of progressive force and we see how things are turning. In short, instead of crying, those who constitute legitimate Left should abandon wrong alliances and concentrate on building party and working with working people against capitalistic parasites to be ready for opportunity which eventually will come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Problem is, the left now consists of parasite cutthroat capitalists who consider the working class "fascists"

    Forget class and economics. The leftist parties are Anti White Racists.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    We also have Maidan where revolution
     
    Oh, the obligatoryy fly in the ointment! It was not a revolution to begin with - the socio-economical formation remained the same. The Oligarchs just swapped a figurehead.

    Othervise the comment is good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Alden
    The Tzarist government instituted mass free public schools after 1866. College and high school were free. Conscripts in the WW1 Russian army had a higher literacy rate than conscripts in the WW1 American army because of mass education in Russia.

    Unfortunately the school teachers became revolutionaries. How can you say Jews were the only poor people who could read and write when your hero was public school superintendent of an entire province in charge of thousands of free elementary and high schools?

    Unfortunately the school teachers became revolutionaries.

    Oh boy, I wonder why? Maybe they read too much Chekhov? You know, his Van’ka (Zhukov) and how he wrote the letter to his grandad in village;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Another long convoluted article by a leftist.

    What is it, OCD that makes them this way?

    Is this how they do the mental gymnastics to justify their positions?

    I have no delusions that Capitalism is benevolent, and certainly don’t want to see it unrestrained. But the belief that you can invest government with the kind of power that it takes to make socialism or communism work, and that that government will then be benevolent, let alone competent, requires a level of self delusion that OCD seems to enable.

    Life is hard. It has always been and will always be. When an oligarchy gets abusive enough of ordinary people they ally themselves with the perpetual left to oppose them, but that does not mean people are stupid enough to take the leftist bait hook line and sinker.

    Life goes on in the space between the rulers and the rabble. If either gets out of balance the pendulum swings. It is a perpetual motion machine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. schmenz says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.
     
    Lol. Anti-communism really is a mind disease.

    If you disagree with Alden’s comment kindly provide a helpful counter-argument. “lol” is not an argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    If you disagree with Alden’s comment kindly provide a helpful counter-argument. “lol” is not an argument.
     
    Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned 'lol' is the only reasonable reaction to "...murdered 200 million of their own citizens".

    And if you disagree with my comment, go ahead and provide a 'helpful counter-argument', if you care.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Andrei Martyanov

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.
     
    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and "Russia Which We Lost" is a complete baloney--by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html

    But by far more impressive, however, is the report of Russian Medical Society on the state of child mortality in Russia (circa 1909)--a very long report and an eye-opening one. Russia paid way more in "violent deaths" in WW I and Civil War than any GULAG (most of it figment of imagination by Solzh) could have ever achieved.

    P.S. There is an interesting book from 1912 by Milyukov "Russia And Her Current Crisis" (from 1910 IIRC) in English, I believe Chicago University Press edition, at least I had this one. Highly recommended.

    Agree 100 percent. Frankly, it is hard to imagine what would happen with Russia without October 1917. No wonder majority senses it despite decades of brainwahing. Civil war bloodshed was started by white movement supported by Western powers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zzz
    War went badly, resignation of king, new goverment, "parade of sovereignties", fragmentation of Russia, lot of economy is foreign owned. All this before october. If one want to fantasize about "nice development" need to rewind not october but to about 50 years prior to it.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Frankly, it is hard to imagine what would happen with Russia without October 1917
     
    See interwar China. Turn up to 11.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. It seems that there is no other way, no shortcut: the world needs new Lenins and Stalins.

    Naw. What the world really needs is to be free from such jackals and their “capitalist” counterparts.

    Orwell (Animal Farm) was correct.

    The author of this piece is correct regarding his comments on immigration, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Anatoly Karlin
    I have never claimed that Imperial Russia wasn't economically backwards. The "Russia Which We Lost" (in my observation mostly a strawman pushed by Communists than something in which many people actually believe) doesn't apply to me. I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/genby/30544598/789677/789677_original.png

    Russian infant mortality remained very high through to the 1940s - in fact, there was no improvement between the last years of RI, and 1940. Those improvements, if anything delayed, had nothing to do with anything specific to the USSR and everything to with the general improvements in antibiotics and obstetrics that you saw in industrializing countries. There was however something genuinely specific to the USSR - it was one of the only industrialized nations where infant mortality rose for years and years on end, from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s.

    I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.

    Highly doubtful for a number of external and internal factors. Russia was “pregnant” (per Sobolev) with revolution and WW I played a crucial role in unleashing it. WW I was this very pain which did it. With it, the old Russia of Tzars was done, no matter what spin is put on the events of February 1917 coup. To propose “if” scenario for “more rapidly” and “with less pain” under the conditions of WW I and forces it created is not reasonable at all. The peasant question remained unsolved in Russia until collectivization and even after that only partially. In the end, Bolsheviks won an ultimate victory (from a dramatic disadvantage) in Civil War over the very forces, as you imply, which would have provided this very “more rapid” and “less painful” development. The outcome of a Civil War puts it under tremendous doubt. Consider also the fact of those forces being supported by half-the-world and still losing it. This speaks volumes about abilities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of those people. The rise of German national-socialism was predetermined as was predetermined the loss of this hypothetical “non-Bolshevik” Russia in WW II which would come one way or another. In fact, that “Russia” would have been utterly crushed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, I'd say, quite simply, that an industrial revolution at that scale can not happen "with far less pain". And that's all there is to it.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Resolving the peasant question by expropriating and killing off the most capable of them and returning the rest to something more redolent of serfdom.

    The Bolsheviks took control of the major European Russian industrial cities early on (thanks in significant part to our Latvian friends). From then on, the defeat of the Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also - supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).
    , @jilles dykstra
    Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002 shows that the five million jews in the tzarist empire were ready for insurrection.
    As Von Plehve told Herzl in 1900 'I would gladly drown five million jews in the Black Sea, but it is impossible'.
    In 1900 the tenth tzarist assimilation commission resigned.
    A few years later Von Plehve was blown to pieces in the Warsaw railway station.
    The end of tzarist Russia began in 1800, with another division of Poland, thereafter the majority of jewry in the world, five million, lived in tzarist Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. utu says:

    Israel Shamir lost hope. His inner Stalinist, who was always there, finally took over his persona. What he is really saying here is that the only solution is to kill people. Lots of them, like Lenin and Stalin. Will he start issuing the proscription lists next?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Israel Shamir
    We are to understand that "Leninist-Stalinist tyranny" is populism. What could people wish more than to send some of its enemies to Gulag?

    We are to understand that “Leninist-Stalinist tyranny” is populism. What could people wish more than to send some of its enemies to Gulag?

    You mean those blue-collar Americans who lost decent jobs in the great off-shoring, really are deplorables, “racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.” are really just a bunch of whining Nazis.

    With your help and Fred Reed’s among others, the point of Unz.com begins to come into focus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @schmenz
    If you disagree with Alden's comment kindly provide a helpful counter-argument. "lol" is not an argument.

    If you disagree with Alden’s comment kindly provide a helpful counter-argument. “lol” is not an argument.

    Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned ‘lol’ is the only reasonable reaction to “…murdered 200 million of their own citizens“.

    And if you disagree with my comment, go ahead and provide a ‘helpful counter-argument’, if you care.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @schmenz
    I see that I am not going to get a reasonable, factual, coherent response. Well, I tried.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Che Guava says:

    Mr. Shamir,

    As always, you are making many good pnints. I am also missing the Cold War, it truly did make western and Asian non-communist govts treat people better. In Japan, unions are now down to zero. There used to be a real union, at some places, they were banned from work sites in general almost twenty years ago. So, you have the staff association pretending to be a union at some places, even some of the same words.

    In mid-to-high level construction, in particular, organized crime runs the show, but they actually do, to a limited degree, look after the workers. I gather that similar systems have existed elsewhere, from my reading, unions and the mob generally have an intimate connection in the USA.

    On the other hand, Henry Ford had the revolutionary idea of treating Ford workers as well as was possible.

    This was not a Cold-War reaction, just common sense. People snidely say, now, that it was only about making Ford workers able to buy the cars they were making. That is a very cheap view on it.

    Ford just wanted to treat the workers well.

    One of our post-War success stories, Honda, started with Mr. Honda buying a massive vat and filling it with booze. He stayed very drunk for weeks (six, according to the myth), but invited engineer and mechanic friends to join in. After they became a little sober, they made the Honda company, which, until recent globalist influences, treated its workers well.

    Also, a little revolutionary, for tech.

    The dignity of labour, You are so correct about that, dear Mr. Shamir.

    God bless you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    " I am also missing the Cold War, it truly did make western and Asian non-communist govts treat people better. "
    Missing the point, after WWII most countries were miserable, ready for communism.
    Prior tot the Italian elections of, I think, 1947, the USA fleet was ready for the Italian coast, tanks already were put ashore, so feared was a communist victory.
    Then the filantropic USA began, three years after it should have begun.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Andrei Martyanov

    I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.
     
    Highly doubtful for a number of external and internal factors. Russia was "pregnant" (per Sobolev) with revolution and WW I played a crucial role in unleashing it. WW I was this very pain which did it. With it, the old Russia of Tzars was done, no matter what spin is put on the events of February 1917 coup. To propose "if" scenario for "more rapidly" and "with less pain" under the conditions of WW I and forces it created is not reasonable at all. The peasant question remained unsolved in Russia until collectivization and even after that only partially. In the end, Bolsheviks won an ultimate victory (from a dramatic disadvantage) in Civil War over the very forces, as you imply, which would have provided this very "more rapid" and "less painful" development. The outcome of a Civil War puts it under tremendous doubt. Consider also the fact of those forces being supported by half-the-world and still losing it. This speaks volumes about abilities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of those people. The rise of German national-socialism was predetermined as was predetermined the loss of this hypothetical "non-Bolshevik" Russia in WW II which would come one way or another. In fact, that "Russia" would have been utterly crushed.

    Well, I’d say, quite simply, that an industrial revolution at that scale can not happen “with far less pain”. And that’s all there is to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    If my Alzheimer doesn't fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia's actual "proletariat", that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia's population--a telling number, really. Especially against the background of low automation of industries then. Corruption in that sphere was also rampant and often resulted in faulty weapons, bad munitions etc. Stalin, in his program article and the speech to industrial management in 1931 was absolutely correct when stated: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. "(c)

    Putin today is facing a similar, albeit much much less (on several orders of magnitude) aggravated problem (and all that thanks to the heritage of those very Stalinists) . If not for the Soviet heritage which allowed Russia to largely overcome, or begin overcoming, this problem, "democratic", "liberal" Russia would have been reduced to a third world shit-hole and, eventually, broken up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Zzz says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Agree 100 percent. Frankly, it is hard to imagine what would happen with Russia without October 1917. No wonder majority senses it despite decades of brainwahing. Civil war bloodshed was started by white movement supported by Western powers.

    War went badly, resignation of king, new goverment, “parade of sovereignties”, fragmentation of Russia, lot of economy is foreign owned. All this before october. If one want to fantasize about “nice development” need to rewind not october but to about 50 years prior to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, I'd say, quite simply, that an industrial revolution at that scale can not happen "with far less pain". And that's all there is to it.

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.
     
    Japan is not a continental nation--not a single reasonable parallel could be drawn between Russia and Japan early 20th Century. Apples and oranges, or whale and elephant--totally different anatomies and environments. Same goes for Japan and China. Albeit one commonality does exist for Russian/Soviet and Japanese industrialization--heavy burden on peasantry. But here Marxists really hit 10.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.
     
    I remember I was impressed by the chapter in Darkness at Noon where the interrogator explains how Russian peasants don't know that the day is divided into hours and hour into minutes.

    No, I don't think Japan, or any other society of similar caliber had gone through a transformation of this scale over the course of a dozen years or so.

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would've probably communicated in German, although I must say, most comments here would probably sound pretty much the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Andrei Martyanov

    I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.
     
    Highly doubtful for a number of external and internal factors. Russia was "pregnant" (per Sobolev) with revolution and WW I played a crucial role in unleashing it. WW I was this very pain which did it. With it, the old Russia of Tzars was done, no matter what spin is put on the events of February 1917 coup. To propose "if" scenario for "more rapidly" and "with less pain" under the conditions of WW I and forces it created is not reasonable at all. The peasant question remained unsolved in Russia until collectivization and even after that only partially. In the end, Bolsheviks won an ultimate victory (from a dramatic disadvantage) in Civil War over the very forces, as you imply, which would have provided this very "more rapid" and "less painful" development. The outcome of a Civil War puts it under tremendous doubt. Consider also the fact of those forces being supported by half-the-world and still losing it. This speaks volumes about abilities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of those people. The rise of German national-socialism was predetermined as was predetermined the loss of this hypothetical "non-Bolshevik" Russia in WW II which would come one way or another. In fact, that "Russia" would have been utterly crushed.

    Resolving the peasant question by expropriating and killing off the most capable of them and returning the rest to something more redolent of serfdom.

    The Bolsheviks took control of the major European Russian industrial cities early on (thanks in significant part to our Latvian friends). From then on, the defeat of the Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).

    Read More
    • Agree: utu, German_reader, AP, Miro23
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.
     
    It was so "negligible" that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway. Operations around Caspian also were supported quite well by British who had a huge vested interest in the region. It was not "negligible". Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement's benefactors. Where did I see numerous repeats of this scenario, with almost the same benefactors, in my lifetime, hm, I wonder? As per ports--there is a reason why ports (any ports) have a strategic (not even operational) significance.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).
     
    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe. Enough to recall with what Lloyd Geroge responded to Woodrow Wilson's appeal for war without reparations. I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia's casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain. But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke. Nor was international communist movement a fluke either, once one considers horrors and consequences WW I and later Great Depression brought to Europe.
    , @jilles dykstra
    There was no peasant question.
    Stalin grabbed the grain, in order to be able to buy heavy industry, for war purposes.
    Not just the farmers died of hunger, also the peasants.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Resolving the peasant question by expropriating and killing off the most capable of them and returning the rest to something more redolent of serfdom.
     
    1) Kulaks were not the most capable. They were most unscrupulous and low on morals bloodsukers, literal miroyeds.

    2) Kolkhozes were not a serfdom. C'mon, Tolya, prove me wrong!

    The Bolsheviks took control of the major European Russian industrial cities early on (thanks in significant part to our Latvian friends)
     
    The Bolsheviks took control over the vast majority of the former Russian Empire early on thanks to the Soviets. Were all Soviets staffed to the gills with the Latvian Rifles troopers?

    Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.
     
    Odessa, Vladivostok, Murmansk, Archangelsk, Baku, etc - just "a few far-flung ports"? Ever studied Japanese intervention on the Far East? Of course you didn't, Tolya. You know precious little in many spheres of knowlege and try to compensate ignorance with chutzpah

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes
     
    That, ah, "fluke", is called a coup d'etat and the Reichstag fire conspiracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, I'd say, quite simply, that an industrial revolution at that scale can not happen "with far less pain". And that's all there is to it.

    If my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia’s actual “proletariat”, that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia’s population–a telling number, really. Especially against the background of low automation of industries then. Corruption in that sphere was also rampant and often resulted in faulty weapons, bad munitions etc. Stalin, in his program article and the speech to industrial management in 1931 was absolutely correct when stated: “We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. “(c)

    Putin today is facing a similar, albeit much much less (on several orders of magnitude) aggravated problem (and all that thanks to the heritage of those very Stalinists) . If not for the Soviet heritage which allowed Russia to largely overcome, or begin overcoming, this problem, “democratic”, “liberal” Russia would have been reduced to a third world shit-hole and, eventually, broken up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. “(c)
    Should have been:
    We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we cannot crush. “(c)
    Nevertheless, without USA aid Stalin's attack would have resulted in a defeat.
    There is no doubt whatsoever that Comintern wanted world domination.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    If my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia’s actual “proletariat”, that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia’s population–a telling number, really.
     
    More than that, actually. 3,7% as for 1897. Probably 5_% as for 1917

    Putin today is facing a similar, albeit much much less (on several orders of magnitude) aggravated problem (and all that thanks to the heritage of those very Stalinists)
     
    That's why the West hates us. That's why they really hate Stalin - due to nukes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Anatoly Karlin
    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.

    Japan is not a continental nation–not a single reasonable parallel could be drawn between Russia and Japan early 20th Century. Apples and oranges, or whale and elephant–totally different anatomies and environments. Same goes for Japan and China. Albeit one commonality does exist for Russian/Soviet and Japanese industrialization–heavy burden on peasantry. But here Marxists really hit 10.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Albertde says:

    Mr. Shamir, I will speak from experience, not from theory. I went camping in 1972 in the Soviet Union (today, Belarus, Russian Federation and the Ukraine), I speak Russian – better then than today – and I wonder what planet you are on. Russia was in no way, except militarily, including rockets, equivalent to a core Western European country. Economically, it was not even on the same level as East Germany, the most prosperous Communist country at the time. People would line up to get items like shoes from Rumania, say, so that they would have something to trade or give when they needed to. So if they got a plumber to come do a repair, they had to offer something like a pair of foreign-made shoes.
    The only people with “la bonne vie” (the good life) were the Nomenklatura, the. Communist Elite, who had access to special stores with better goods and food as well as better living accomodations than were available to the masses. The propaganda was that their salaries were not much more than the masses but that was irrelevant as the key was access, not salary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Correct, even Chrustjow was flabbergasted when he saw how USA workers lived.
    The communist system, without the profit steering mechanism, was unable to produce consumer goods.
    The system fell apart with communications, notably tv, it no longer was possible to hide that the average person in the west had a far better life.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    People would line up to get items like shoes from Rumania
     
    Don't lie, you anti-Sovetchik, people would never line up for shoes from Romania. Shoes form Austria-well, that is another story altogether;-))) LOL. Now, without jokes, you are both correct and wrong. It is impossible to reduce such a complex country as USSR to some memes. If you were there in 1972 then you should know that it was merely 27 years after the war which devastated Russia's European part almost completely. FYI, FRG (West Germany) closed her last post-WW II restoration, IIRC, in...1989. Now, let's go from 1972 to 2014, boy, were Communists right about West--ask present day Russians will they give up some comforts and even, oh goody, access to some shoes in favor of reliable defense? I think you know the answer. Now go back to 1972 and ask yourself a question (whoever you are by nationality) how would your people feel if they would have been removed less than one generation from losing 27 million people in the most devastating war in history and then had restore their whole country literally from rubble, while being threatened with nuclear war? Yes, such conditions do not include consumer goods paradise, tanks and missiles seemed more important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. HenryCC says:

    It takes an (((Israel Shamir))) to write such crap.
    I bet he don’t even know that the Soviet Union, since its birth, was unable to maintain itself and relied on huge amounts of (((foreign capital))) to just be able to exist.
    Maybe he can read “The Naked Communist”? Or just read anything other than Leftist propaganda, as he lives in a bubble.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst, Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @Anatoly Karlin
    Resolving the peasant question by expropriating and killing off the most capable of them and returning the rest to something more redolent of serfdom.

    The Bolsheviks took control of the major European Russian industrial cities early on (thanks in significant part to our Latvian friends). From then on, the defeat of the Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also - supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).

    Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.

    It was so “negligible” that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway. Operations around Caspian also were supported quite well by British who had a huge vested interest in the region. It was not “negligible”. Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement’s benefactors. Where did I see numerous repeats of this scenario, with almost the same benefactors, in my lifetime, hm, I wonder? As per ports–there is a reason why ports (any ports) have a strategic (not even operational) significance.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).

    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe. Enough to recall with what Lloyd Geroge responded to Woodrow Wilson’s appeal for war without reparations. I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia’s casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain. But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke. Nor was international communist movement a fluke either, once one considers horrors and consequences WW I and later Great Depression brought to Europe.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sergey Krieger
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    German misery around 1930, hunger, frozen feet, was such that they would follow anyone promising to deliver them.
    And Hitler did.
    In just three years time, 1933 1936, unemployment went down from six to one million.
    Streets were safe again.
    , @AP

    It was so “negligible” that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway.
     
    50,000 Czech POWS in a country of 170 million is not much. This indicates not a massive level of support for the Whites but the chaotic and collapsed state of the country, where small groups could accomplish a lot. The fact that the Bolsheviks couldn't handle 50,000 Czech POWs tells us that they weren't so strong at that time, either.

    Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement’s benefactors.
     
    Fragmentation was determined by geography; the Whites were largely cut off from each other. Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia's industrial base. Even though they had the support of perhaps 25% of the country these factors were enough to allow them to hijack it.

    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe.
     
    And it may be that if Russia joined the circle of victors:

    1. Germany would have been too crushed to present as much of a threat. It may had less territory and less population.

    2. Russia would of course have had more territory.

    I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia’s casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain.
     
    It might have imposed enough, to prevent Germany from being in a position to try to conquer Europe.

    But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke.
     
    Even with the 1929 Depression Hitler barely seized power, with the threat of Bolshevism while not the main factor, being enough to give him the edge. That is rather clear.

    A non-Nazi reactionary German government was possible. It probably wouldn't have been genocidal.
    , @Cortes
    Agree with most of your points but the Czech contingent did include elements of less than 100% reliability...like

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Hašek

    His short pieces collected as "The Red Commissar" are worth a read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. wayfarer says:
    @76daze
    "Nothing matches the Holocaust for pure evil", asserts a Jew!

    You must be a boomer to post this Prager U drivel.

    Thanks for calling me on this, 76daze.

    I posted the video without much thought, hoping to shed some light on the virulent communist ANTIFA movement.

    Was completely unaware of PragerU, had never heard of them. But on further investigation I’ve come to the conclusion that they’ve got a toxic agenda in mind for America.

    I now regret having posted a propaganda product from PragerU. It was a careless mistake. Unfortunately at this point, the video can’t be removed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Dolores says:

    Capitalism; (bankers) all assets are owned by banking.
    Communism; (bankers) all state assets are turned over to communism.
    Lenin married to a banker’s daughter.
    Trostsky married to a banker’s daughter.
    Marxism a bankers ideology hidden so well within that to this day people can’t see it.
    Stalin hated by bankers for making communism work for the state instead of the other way around.
    I don’t know but I see a common denominator in this few examples. Now if we go further back in history I wonder what can be found…the same maybe?
    You want to find the truth follow the money trail…regardless of what name/label is attached to it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Churchill married the daughter of a banker.
    , @Alden
    Ah yes, Lenin's wife Krupsaka who suffered so terribly in Siberia with only a cook and 2 maids.

    I'm getting nauseous.
    , @jacques sheete
    Speaking of banks....

    World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia...

    After World War II, the united Rockefeller-Morgan Kuhn, Loeb Eastern Establishment was not allowed to enjoy its financial and political supremacy unchallenged for long. “Cowboy” Sun Belt firms, maverick oil men and construction men...are also much less inclined to bail out the now Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and other Wall Street banks that loaned recklessly to Third World and Communist countries and expect the U.S. taxpayer – through outright taxes or the printing of U.S. dollars – to pick up the tab.

    -Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy

    https://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Dolores
    Capitalism; (bankers) all assets are owned by banking.
    Communism; (bankers) all state assets are turned over to communism.
    Lenin married to a banker's daughter.
    Trostsky married to a banker's daughter.
    Marxism a bankers ideology hidden so well within that to this day people can't see it.
    Stalin hated by bankers for making communism work for the state instead of the other way around.
    I don't know but I see a common denominator in this few examples. Now if we go further back in history I wonder what can be found...the same maybe?
    You want to find the truth follow the money trail...regardless of what name/label is attached to it.

    Churchill married the daughter of a banker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Do you mean Randolph or Winston his son? Randolph married the daughter of a crooked, scandalous New York banker.

    Winston married the daughter of Sir Henry Hozier, a wealthy land owner who inherited his farms and fortune and never did a lick of work in his life
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Albertde
    Mr. Shamir, I will speak from experience, not from theory. I went camping in 1972 in the Soviet Union (today, Belarus, Russian Federation and the Ukraine), I speak Russian - better then than today - and I wonder what planet you are on. Russia was in no way, except militarily, including rockets, equivalent to a core Western European country. Economically, it was not even on the same level as East Germany, the most prosperous Communist country at the time. People would line up to get items like shoes from Rumania, say, so that they would have something to trade or give when they needed to. So if they got a plumber to come do a repair, they had to offer something like a pair of foreign-made shoes.
    The only people with "la bonne vie" (the good life) were the Nomenklatura, the. Communist Elite, who had access to special stores with better goods and food as well as better living accomodations than were available to the masses. The propaganda was that their salaries were not much more than the masses but that was irrelevant as the key was access, not salary.

    Correct, even Chrustjow was flabbergasted when he saw how USA workers lived.
    The communist system, without the profit steering mechanism, was unable to produce consumer goods.
    The system fell apart with communications, notably tv, it no longer was possible to hide that the average person in the west had a far better life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Correct, even Chrustjow was flabbergasted when he saw how USA workers lived.
     
    Remind me, how many people did the USA lost in the WW2? How much of its territory had been turned into a rubble?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Andrei Martyanov

    Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.
     
    It was so "negligible" that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway. Operations around Caspian also were supported quite well by British who had a huge vested interest in the region. It was not "negligible". Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement's benefactors. Where did I see numerous repeats of this scenario, with almost the same benefactors, in my lifetime, hm, I wonder? As per ports--there is a reason why ports (any ports) have a strategic (not even operational) significance.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).
     
    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe. Enough to recall with what Lloyd Geroge responded to Woodrow Wilson's appeal for war without reparations. I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia's casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain. But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke. Nor was international communist movement a fluke either, once one considers horrors and consequences WW I and later Great Depression brought to Europe.

    German misery around 1930, hunger, frozen feet, was such that they would follow anyone promising to deliver them.
    And Hitler did.
    In just three years time, 1933 1936, unemployment went down from six to one million.
    Streets were safe again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Albertde
    Mr. Shamir, I will speak from experience, not from theory. I went camping in 1972 in the Soviet Union (today, Belarus, Russian Federation and the Ukraine), I speak Russian - better then than today - and I wonder what planet you are on. Russia was in no way, except militarily, including rockets, equivalent to a core Western European country. Economically, it was not even on the same level as East Germany, the most prosperous Communist country at the time. People would line up to get items like shoes from Rumania, say, so that they would have something to trade or give when they needed to. So if they got a plumber to come do a repair, they had to offer something like a pair of foreign-made shoes.
    The only people with "la bonne vie" (the good life) were the Nomenklatura, the. Communist Elite, who had access to special stores with better goods and food as well as better living accomodations than were available to the masses. The propaganda was that their salaries were not much more than the masses but that was irrelevant as the key was access, not salary.

    People would line up to get items like shoes from Rumania

    Don’t lie, you anti-Sovetchik, people would never line up for shoes from Romania. Shoes form Austria-well, that is another story altogether;-))) LOL. Now, without jokes, you are both correct and wrong. It is impossible to reduce such a complex country as USSR to some memes. If you were there in 1972 then you should know that it was merely 27 years after the war which devastated Russia’s European part almost completely. FYI, FRG (West Germany) closed her last post-WW II restoration, IIRC, in…1989. Now, let’s go from 1972 to 2014, boy, were Communists right about West–ask present day Russians will they give up some comforts and even, oh goody, access to some shoes in favor of reliable defense? I think you know the answer. Now go back to 1972 and ask yourself a question (whoever you are by nationality) how would your people feel if they would have been removed less than one generation from losing 27 million people in the most devastating war in history and then had restore their whole country literally from rubble, while being threatened with nuclear war? Yes, such conditions do not include consumer goods paradise, tanks and missiles seemed more important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    They don't get it. It useless frankly. But knowing about losses in yours, mine and other people families put priorities in right order.
    , @Albertde
    I am not denigrating the Soviet Union. I realize that there was devastation from WWII. In fact, at one of the campsites in Oryol, we sat down with some student volunteers and watched a film about WWII and how the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting. My point was that, regardless of the reason, the country was not at the level of a Western European country economically.

    Undoubtedly, with respect to education, the Soviet and Communist system in general was and Russia still is in the forefront. This is something irrational Fahrenheit land with its quaint measuring system doesn't understand. I guess education below the university level is not important when you can seduce/steal the world's brains.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Andrei Martyanov
    If my Alzheimer doesn't fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia's actual "proletariat", that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia's population--a telling number, really. Especially against the background of low automation of industries then. Corruption in that sphere was also rampant and often resulted in faulty weapons, bad munitions etc. Stalin, in his program article and the speech to industrial management in 1931 was absolutely correct when stated: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. "(c)

    Putin today is facing a similar, albeit much much less (on several orders of magnitude) aggravated problem (and all that thanks to the heritage of those very Stalinists) . If not for the Soviet heritage which allowed Russia to largely overcome, or begin overcoming, this problem, "democratic", "liberal" Russia would have been reduced to a third world shit-hole and, eventually, broken up.

    We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. “(c)
    Should have been:
    We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we cannot crush. “(c)
    Nevertheless, without USA aid Stalin’s attack would have resulted in a defeat.
    There is no doubt whatsoever that Comintern wanted world domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    This post is totally incoherent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Anatoly Karlin
    Resolving the peasant question by expropriating and killing off the most capable of them and returning the rest to something more redolent of serfdom.

    The Bolsheviks took control of the major European Russian industrial cities early on (thanks in significant part to our Latvian friends). From then on, the defeat of the Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also - supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).

    There was no peasant question.
    Stalin grabbed the grain, in order to be able to buy heavy industry, for war purposes.
    Not just the farmers died of hunger, also the peasants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    There was no peasant question.
     
    Don't write things you have no clue about and you don't since you have no idea what classic Russian literature is (most of it dedicated to this very peasant question) nor you have any idea about Russian social thought of 18-19th centuries. Don't even try.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Che Guava
    Mr. Shamir,

    As always, you are making many good pnints. I am also missing the Cold War, it truly did make western and Asian non-communist govts treat people better. In Japan, unions are now down to zero. There used to be a real union, at some places, they were banned from work sites in general almost twenty years ago. So, you have the staff association pretending to be a union at some places, even some of the same words.

    In mid-to-high level construction, in particular, organized crime runs the show, but they actually do, to a limited degree, look after the workers. I gather that similar systems have existed elsewhere, from my reading, unions and the mob generally have an intimate connection in the USA.

    On the other hand, Henry Ford had the revolutionary idea of treating Ford workers as well as was possible.

    This was not a Cold-War reaction, just common sense. People snidely say, now, that it was only about making Ford workers able to buy the cars they were making. That is a very cheap view on it.

    Ford just wanted to treat the workers well.

    One of our post-War success stories, Honda, started with Mr. Honda buying a massive vat and filling it with booze. He stayed very drunk for weeks (six, according to the myth), but invited engineer and mechanic friends to join in. After they became a little sober, they made the Honda company, which, until recent globalist influences, treated its workers well.

    Also, a little revolutionary, for tech.

    The dignity of labour, You are so correct about that, dear Mr. Shamir.

    God bless you.

    ” I am also missing the Cold War, it truly did make western and Asian non-communist govts treat people better. ”
    Missing the point, after WWII most countries were miserable, ready for communism.
    Prior tot the Italian elections of, I think, 1947, the USA fleet was ready for the Italian coast, tanks already were put ashore, so feared was a communist victory.
    Then the filantropic USA began, three years after it should have begun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Yes, so many situations like that in Europe, Greece as one. Thank you, I had not read of that one in Italy.

    In Japan, only the good students know that the first elected post-war govt. was socialist. The habitual ruling party likes to imply that they were the first.

    The US occupation (which remains) was still in full force at the time, so they permitted the bureaucracy to disobey and subvert the elected govt., which of course, fell as a result.

    The mixed bag of war criminals etc. that came to power at the next election was more to US tastes, so they have (almost) always been the govt. since then.

    The other big emergency concerned the US-Japan security treaty, the movement against it was massive and popular, it almost brought the govt. down. That was in the very early sixties.

    The later and more famous student revolts of the late sixties to early seventies seem to have been a plot of the internal security and the CIA. All of these tiny, mainly Trot groups, more intent on fighting each other than anything else. Some mutated into terrorist groups, on the German and Italian patterns. Some still appear on police 'wanted' posters.

    A few still launched minor attacks on US bases, as late as the early 2000's.

    I have a friend who says that the Aum Shinrikkyou was, at least in part, a creation of internal security, with the aim of discrediting radical groups in general.

    His hypothesis is convincing to me. Everyone in the west who reads knows about the Tokyo subway sarin attacks.

    Few know that in the regional city. Matsumoto, months earlier, Aum agents had driven through, dispensing sarin.

    Many were poisoned. I once met a young man there, whose heart I hate, who was pleased because one of his teachers was among the victims.

    There were no arrests. leaving the gate open for the later Tokyo subway attack.

    Very strange. It makes me believe that my friend's theory is very likely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Andrei Martyanov

    I do claim that it would have developed more rapidly, successfully, and with far less pain than under the Soviets.
     
    Highly doubtful for a number of external and internal factors. Russia was "pregnant" (per Sobolev) with revolution and WW I played a crucial role in unleashing it. WW I was this very pain which did it. With it, the old Russia of Tzars was done, no matter what spin is put on the events of February 1917 coup. To propose "if" scenario for "more rapidly" and "with less pain" under the conditions of WW I and forces it created is not reasonable at all. The peasant question remained unsolved in Russia until collectivization and even after that only partially. In the end, Bolsheviks won an ultimate victory (from a dramatic disadvantage) in Civil War over the very forces, as you imply, which would have provided this very "more rapid" and "less painful" development. The outcome of a Civil War puts it under tremendous doubt. Consider also the fact of those forces being supported by half-the-world and still losing it. This speaks volumes about abilities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of those people. The rise of German national-socialism was predetermined as was predetermined the loss of this hypothetical "non-Bolshevik" Russia in WW II which would come one way or another. In fact, that "Russia" would have been utterly crushed.

    Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002 shows that the five million jews in the tzarist empire were ready for insurrection.
    As Von Plehve told Herzl in 1900 'I would gladly drown five million jews in the Black Sea, but it is impossible'.
    In 1900 the tenth tzarist assimilation commission resigned.
    A few years later Von Plehve was blown to pieces in the Warsaw railway station.
    The end of tzarist Russia began in 1800, with another division of Poland, thereafter the majority of jewry in the world, five million, lived in tzarist Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    There was the Decemberist revolution 1820s. They were young aristocrats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @jilles dykstra
    There was no peasant question.
    Stalin grabbed the grain, in order to be able to buy heavy industry, for war purposes.
    Not just the farmers died of hunger, also the peasants.

    There was no peasant question.

    Don’t write things you have no clue about and you don’t since you have no idea what classic Russian literature is (most of it dedicated to this very peasant question) nor you have any idea about Russian social thought of 18-19th centuries. Don’t even try.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. In a way, BLM or Black Lives Matter is as American as apple pie or fried chicken.

    BLM throw fits when people say All Lives Matter. No!!!, blacks scream. They say black lives have special value and deserves special recognition and attention. So, it’s as though black lives are ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ in ways that other lives are not.

    But BLM is a great big lie because blacks are the most aggressive, murderous, and violent people in America. They cause most problems for themselves and attack-rob-rape-murder other races. Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.

    Well, Americanism is now like American Power Matters. America and America alone is ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’. If someone were to say every nation is ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ in its own way, American Power fumes and throw fits. No!!! American power screams. American Power says America had special value and deserves special respect and reverence around the world in ways that other nations do not.

    But APM is a great big lie because the US is the most aggressive, murderous, imperialist, warmongering, and violent nation on Earth. It causes the most problems for itself — like financial meltdown, PC, and decadence — and invade & destroy or bully & intimidate other nations. American Power cries victim and blame others(esp Russia and Iran), but it is the main troublemaker in the world.

    So, the disingenuous BS of BLM and the mendacious perversity of APM are pscyho-politically two sides of the same coin.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Pretty much everything you say here is true, except:

    Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.
     
    The blacks are a problem, but they're not the main problem. No, not by a long shot. The main problem in this country would be the Jews. You can avoid pretty much avoid all the problems caused by blacks simply by not living near them. But no matter where you live, you are never really safe from the power of the Jews . Hell, even BLM itself is underwritten by Soros!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Anatoly Karlin
    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.

    I remember I was impressed by the chapter in Darkness at Noon where the interrogator explains how Russian peasants don’t know that the day is divided into hours and hour into minutes.

    No, I don’t think Japan, or any other society of similar caliber had gone through a transformation of this scale over the course of a dozen years or so.

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would’ve probably communicated in German, although I must say, most comments here would probably sound pretty much the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I start liking you.
    , @AP

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would’ve probably communicated in German,
     
    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    There are anecdotal accounts of Irish peasants receiving the news of the 1969 moon landings with disbelief since they believed that God lived in the skies above.

    In other words, typical religious peasant attitudes that are gradually stamped out with education (which would have automatically happened - primary enrollment was around 80% in the last years of Imperial Russia, and the last cohort to undergo its schooling was more literate than the generation that received their schooling in the 1920s).
    , @Che Guava
    Pre-black ships (Commodore Perry) and Japan of soon after was a mix. There really was little idea of 'Nippon' as a thing, and conditions varied greatly with the ruling family in the fiefdom, and whether they were green, amber or red to the Tokugawa.

    Advanced clockwork, medicine, industrial systems, ceramics were gleaned from the Dutch trade prison in the south, noble families in the south and west didn't pay much attention to the Tokugawa rules, so there was much exchange (and nastiness, citing the invasion of the Ryuku kimgdom by Satsuma as a relatively early one at the time) with China and Korea. Perry was faced with cannon as he arrived, sure, the tech. was outdated by a century or so, but large gun emplacements were in place.

    Perry was such an arsehole, the cannon should have been used on his mini-fleet, sure, they would have bombarded the shore, but they would have had nowhere to go except away.
    , @Anon

    I remember I was impressed by the chapter in Darkness at Noon where the interrogator explains how Russian peasants don’t know that the day is divided into hours and hour into minutes.
     
    To say I don't trust Koestler (more precisely one of his presumably less trustworthy characters) on this statement, or Karlin's Irish peasants for that matter, would be a massive understatement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. As an old school flat cap wearing trade unionist and sometime organizer, this nostalgia piece reminds me that once upon a time you could find actual Marx reading leftists in the barrooms and pool halls, the hiring halls and boxing gyms, the jobsites and mining camps and skid roads, the boxcars and the decks of freighters at sea.

    Anyhow, although Euro-communism will never come to this country, and Thomas Jefferson will always be a better guide to the American worker’s hope for dignity and manhood than Marx and Lenin, it has been fascinating to see the rise of right-wing anti-capitalism. All of a sudden, everyone is talking about “the elites” and even “the bourgeoisie”. What class war? lol. I’m just enjoying it and taking it all in, “I’ll watch from the bar” as my old man used to say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Alden says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Good article but I sense desperation. Anfortunately Western socialism sold it's soul long before 1991. Lenin saved the Left and turned their into practise. Now it was squandered and considering people of Lenin and Stalin caliber are not coming often we are stuck with analitics who analyze but don't act as Giants did. Unfortunatelly suffering inflicted by capitalists will have to reach new highs untill most of the people get it and new Giants appear. Right now people are atomized and disunited. The question of what is to be done is again here. There is no secret of course. We often hear that revolution are caused by Jews, bankers, intelligence services and other outside influence. This is of course nonsense. Every revolution or uprising has local origin and causes. However without progressive organized force in thele place the thing is just a headless chicken which can be led in any direction and used by ulterior forces. This is exactly what has been happening in recent years. I am talking so called color revolution. In 1917 there was Bolsheviks party with Lenin which took masses in right direction and in 40+ years Soviet Russia was sending rockets into space and had other equally great things. We also have Maidan where revolution was highjacked by outside forces in absence of progressive force and we see how things are turning. In short, instead of crying, those who constitute legitimate Left should abandon wrong alliances and concentrate on building party and working with working people against capitalistic parasites to be ready for opportunity which eventually will come.

    Problem is, the left now consists of parasite cutthroat capitalists who consider the working class “fascists”

    Forget class and economics. The leftist parties are Anti White Racists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    They are not Left. That's where their opportunism got them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Andrei Martyanov

    People would line up to get items like shoes from Rumania
     
    Don't lie, you anti-Sovetchik, people would never line up for shoes from Romania. Shoes form Austria-well, that is another story altogether;-))) LOL. Now, without jokes, you are both correct and wrong. It is impossible to reduce such a complex country as USSR to some memes. If you were there in 1972 then you should know that it was merely 27 years after the war which devastated Russia's European part almost completely. FYI, FRG (West Germany) closed her last post-WW II restoration, IIRC, in...1989. Now, let's go from 1972 to 2014, boy, were Communists right about West--ask present day Russians will they give up some comforts and even, oh goody, access to some shoes in favor of reliable defense? I think you know the answer. Now go back to 1972 and ask yourself a question (whoever you are by nationality) how would your people feel if they would have been removed less than one generation from losing 27 million people in the most devastating war in history and then had restore their whole country literally from rubble, while being threatened with nuclear war? Yes, such conditions do not include consumer goods paradise, tanks and missiles seemed more important.

    They don’t get it. It useless frankly. But knowing about losses in yours, mine and other people families put priorities in right order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Alden says:
    @Dolores
    Capitalism; (bankers) all assets are owned by banking.
    Communism; (bankers) all state assets are turned over to communism.
    Lenin married to a banker's daughter.
    Trostsky married to a banker's daughter.
    Marxism a bankers ideology hidden so well within that to this day people can't see it.
    Stalin hated by bankers for making communism work for the state instead of the other way around.
    I don't know but I see a common denominator in this few examples. Now if we go further back in history I wonder what can be found...the same maybe?
    You want to find the truth follow the money trail...regardless of what name/label is attached to it.

    Ah yes, Lenin’s wife Krupsaka who suffered so terribly in Siberia with only a cook and 2 maids.

    I’m getting nauseous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Churchill married the daughter of a banker.

    Do you mean Randolph or Winston his son? Randolph married the daughter of a crooked, scandalous New York banker.

    Winston married the daughter of Sir Henry Hozier, a wealthy land owner who inherited his farms and fortune and never did a lick of work in his life

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.
     
    I remember I was impressed by the chapter in Darkness at Noon where the interrogator explains how Russian peasants don't know that the day is divided into hours and hour into minutes.

    No, I don't think Japan, or any other society of similar caliber had gone through a transformation of this scale over the course of a dozen years or so.

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would've probably communicated in German, although I must say, most comments here would probably sound pretty much the same.

    I start liking you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Priss Factor
    In a way, BLM or Black Lives Matter is as American as apple pie or fried chicken.

    BLM throw fits when people say All Lives Matter. No!!!, blacks scream. They say black lives have special value and deserves special recognition and attention. So, it's as though black lives are 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' in ways that other lives are not.

    But BLM is a great big lie because blacks are the most aggressive, murderous, and violent people in America. They cause most problems for themselves and attack-rob-rape-murder other races. Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.

    Well, Americanism is now like American Power Matters. America and America alone is 'exceptional' and 'indispensable'. If someone were to say every nation is 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' in its own way, American Power fumes and throw fits. No!!! American power screams. American Power says America had special value and deserves special respect and reverence around the world in ways that other nations do not.

    But APM is a great big lie because the US is the most aggressive, murderous, imperialist, warmongering, and violent nation on Earth. It causes the most problems for itself -- like financial meltdown, PC, and decadence -- and invade & destroy or bully & intimidate other nations. American Power cries victim and blame others(esp Russia and Iran), but it is the main troublemaker in the world.

    So, the disingenuous BS of BLM and the mendacious perversity of APM are pscyho-politically two sides of the same coin.

    Pretty much everything you say here is true, except:

    Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.

    The blacks are a problem, but they’re not the main problem. No, not by a long shot. The main problem in this country would be the Jews. You can avoid pretty much avoid all the problems caused by blacks simply by not living near them. But no matter where you live, you are never really safe from the power of the Jews . Hell, even BLM itself is underwritten by Soros!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The main problem in this country would be the Jews.
     
    I certainly don't often disagree with you Seamus, but here I do.

    the main problem with this country isn't Jews or blacks

    it's whites

    there's nothing that Jews or blacks (or Mexicans or Muslims or anyone else) would be able to do without the eager complicity of the throngs and legions of venal, craven, white male cowards and traitors.

    take for instance virtually every single white Republican in the US congress. Whores and liars and traitors to a man and women.

    how well would the Jews or anyone else be able to harm this nation and its people were it not for the McCains and Bush's and Trumps of this country?

    how many wars or immigration treasons would be possible were it not for lying white men on the television or standing in the church pulpits shilling for America's worst enemies?

    how many wars would we be in if all the white men in congress and the media stopped playing along with the evil schemes? And forget the Democrats, because at least they're honest and say they want to destroy whitey and his evil patriarchy, blah, blah. It's not them. Rather it's the Republicans who say they want to help this country and its people, but then on cue take their bag of thirty shekels and betray us all every single fucking time!

    So no, you can't blame the blacks for being blacks, and often violent and hostile. We all know they're that way, but it was whitey that funded the welfare programs that exploded their numbers in the inner cities, and thereby created the horrible conditions that they languish in.

    You can't blame the Jews for seeking to further Jewish interests, because we all know that's what they do, and so they should be challenged when those interests are contradictory to the rest of America's. But they never are, because of the infinite venality and dishonestly and duplicity and craven, sniveling cowardice of all the white men who go along with all of this bullshit.

    Sheldon Adlelson would get nowhere were it not for "men" like Mitt Romney and McCain and Bush and Cheney and Trump and all the other whores of Zion.

    I don't blame Adelson for inviting them all over to lick his bathroom floors clean to prove their fealty, I blame the obeisant "men" on their knees slurping and groveling and offering up their services.

    And all the American and other Western men too bovine to pay enough attention to see what rotten cowards and traitors they've elected to represent them.

    I'd froth some more but I've got to go ;)
    , @Anon
    Jews exploit black rage, but without blacks, Jews couldn't do much harm.

    But even if US had no Jews, blacks would be a big big problem.

    Also, for every Jewish shark or parasite who robs us(like Bernie Madoff), there are other Jews who really do contribute to wealth-creation and innovation. So, some Jews take, but other Jews add.
    But what do blacks add to the US? Rap thug culture? Who needs that?

    , @druid
    I totally agree with you.
    I wish this site would let us agree repeatedly without having to comment our agreement!
    Don't get it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Immigrants are a tool in the hands of neo-liberals. People who blame immigrants are people of limited intelligence, and such people can be duped easily.

    It’s obvious that the people in charge are responsible for encouraging and allowing the immigration, but the immigrants themselves are also responsible. Many legal and illegal immigrants are hostile and believe that they are inheriting the West, and they are often as hostile and guilty as the rulers who make it possible for them to be here. Of course people who actually deal with the obnoxious invaders face-to-face, and on a daily basis, will largely direct their anger at the immigrants. After all, they’ve tried the ballot box countless times. Are they supposed to attack faceless bureaucrats or politicians that they can’t come within an mile of without being jailed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Rurik says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Pretty much everything you say here is true, except:

    Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.
     
    The blacks are a problem, but they're not the main problem. No, not by a long shot. The main problem in this country would be the Jews. You can avoid pretty much avoid all the problems caused by blacks simply by not living near them. But no matter where you live, you are never really safe from the power of the Jews . Hell, even BLM itself is underwritten by Soros!

    The main problem in this country would be the Jews.

    I certainly don’t often disagree with you Seamus, but here I do.

    the main problem with this country isn’t Jews or blacks

    it’s whites

    there’s nothing that Jews or blacks (or Mexicans or Muslims or anyone else) would be able to do without the eager complicity of the throngs and legions of venal, craven, white male cowards and traitors.

    take for instance virtually every single white Republican in the US congress. Whores and liars and traitors to a man and women.

    how well would the Jews or anyone else be able to harm this nation and its people were it not for the McCains and Bush’s and Trumps of this country?

    how many wars or immigration treasons would be possible were it not for lying white men on the television or standing in the church pulpits shilling for America’s worst enemies?

    how many wars would we be in if all the white men in congress and the media stopped playing along with the evil schemes? And forget the Democrats, because at least they’re honest and say they want to destroy whitey and his evil patriarchy, blah, blah. It’s not them. Rather it’s the Republicans who say they want to help this country and its people, but then on cue take their bag of thirty shekels and betray us all every single fucking time!

    So no, you can’t blame the blacks for being blacks, and often violent and hostile. We all know they’re that way, but it was whitey that funded the welfare programs that exploded their numbers in the inner cities, and thereby created the horrible conditions that they languish in.

    You can’t blame the Jews for seeking to further Jewish interests, because we all know that’s what they do, and so they should be challenged when those interests are contradictory to the rest of America’s. But they never are, because of the infinite venality and dishonestly and duplicity and craven, sniveling cowardice of all the white men who go along with all of this bullshit.

    Sheldon Adlelson would get nowhere were it not for “men” like Mitt Romney and McCain and Bush and Cheney and Trump and all the other whores of Zion.

    I don’t blame Adelson for inviting them all over to lick his bathroom floors clean to prove their fealty, I blame the obeisant “men” on their knees slurping and groveling and offering up their services.

    And all the American and other Western men too bovine to pay enough attention to see what rotten cowards and traitors they’ve elected to represent them.

    I’d froth some more but I’ve got to go ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    OK, Ive got a couple minutes

    take a look at the guys at the Club for Growth

    take a look at the Koch brothers

    take a look at the Chamber of Commerce types. See if you can pull up the ones from your city or town. They'll be as white as they come, and in love with unlimited immigration

    take a look at the Christian churches who're the ones resettling so many immigrants from Somalia and Ethiopians in places like Maine or Minnesota

    these are all white men who're betraying their nation and their communities in order to status whore or collect a few extra shekels

    the Koch brothers don't need more money, why would such men want to fuck over the working class white people of this nation for a few shekels more?!

    were it not for the traitors among us, the Zionists and black race pimps and La Raza wouldn't get the time of day

    instead, they get everything, and the white people from whose ranks these white "men" hail from, get the shaft

    who do I blame?
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors? You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don't blame all whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Alden
    Problem is, the left now consists of parasite cutthroat capitalists who consider the working class "fascists"

    Forget class and economics. The leftist parties are Anti White Racists.

    They are not Left. That’s where their opportunism got them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    They contribute to the left democrat party and all the anti White working class causes and call them selves left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Rurik says:
    @Rurik

    The main problem in this country would be the Jews.
     
    I certainly don't often disagree with you Seamus, but here I do.

    the main problem with this country isn't Jews or blacks

    it's whites

    there's nothing that Jews or blacks (or Mexicans or Muslims or anyone else) would be able to do without the eager complicity of the throngs and legions of venal, craven, white male cowards and traitors.

    take for instance virtually every single white Republican in the US congress. Whores and liars and traitors to a man and women.

    how well would the Jews or anyone else be able to harm this nation and its people were it not for the McCains and Bush's and Trumps of this country?

    how many wars or immigration treasons would be possible were it not for lying white men on the television or standing in the church pulpits shilling for America's worst enemies?

    how many wars would we be in if all the white men in congress and the media stopped playing along with the evil schemes? And forget the Democrats, because at least they're honest and say they want to destroy whitey and his evil patriarchy, blah, blah. It's not them. Rather it's the Republicans who say they want to help this country and its people, but then on cue take their bag of thirty shekels and betray us all every single fucking time!

    So no, you can't blame the blacks for being blacks, and often violent and hostile. We all know they're that way, but it was whitey that funded the welfare programs that exploded their numbers in the inner cities, and thereby created the horrible conditions that they languish in.

    You can't blame the Jews for seeking to further Jewish interests, because we all know that's what they do, and so they should be challenged when those interests are contradictory to the rest of America's. But they never are, because of the infinite venality and dishonestly and duplicity and craven, sniveling cowardice of all the white men who go along with all of this bullshit.

    Sheldon Adlelson would get nowhere were it not for "men" like Mitt Romney and McCain and Bush and Cheney and Trump and all the other whores of Zion.

    I don't blame Adelson for inviting them all over to lick his bathroom floors clean to prove their fealty, I blame the obeisant "men" on their knees slurping and groveling and offering up their services.

    And all the American and other Western men too bovine to pay enough attention to see what rotten cowards and traitors they've elected to represent them.

    I'd froth some more but I've got to go ;)

    OK, Ive got a couple minutes

    take a look at the guys at the Club for Growth

    take a look at the Koch brothers

    take a look at the Chamber of Commerce types. See if you can pull up the ones from your city or town. They’ll be as white as they come, and in love with unlimited immigration

    take a look at the Christian churches who’re the ones resettling so many immigrants from Somalia and Ethiopians in places like Maine or Minnesota

    these are all white men who’re betraying their nation and their communities in order to status whore or collect a few extra shekels

    the Koch brothers don’t need more money, why would such men want to fuck over the working class white people of this nation for a few shekels more?!

    were it not for the traitors among us, the Zionists and black race pimps and La Raza wouldn’t get the time of day

    instead, they get everything, and the white people from whose ranks these white “men” hail from, get the shaft

    who do I blame?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Seamus Padraig
    Pretty much everything you say here is true, except:

    Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.
     
    The blacks are a problem, but they're not the main problem. No, not by a long shot. The main problem in this country would be the Jews. You can avoid pretty much avoid all the problems caused by blacks simply by not living near them. But no matter where you live, you are never really safe from the power of the Jews . Hell, even BLM itself is underwritten by Soros!

    Jews exploit black rage, but without blacks, Jews couldn’t do much harm.

    But even if US had no Jews, blacks would be a big big problem.

    Also, for every Jewish shark or parasite who robs us(like Bernie Madoff), there are other Jews who really do contribute to wealth-creation and innovation. So, some Jews take, but other Jews add.
    But what do blacks add to the US? Rap thug culture? Who needs that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    The Jews seem to have been able to f*ck over Europe pretty good even before the arrival of any darkies; although admittedly, mass immigration from culturally incompatible countries makes their work easier.
    , @druid
    The ones who take take a lot and then use that loot to manipulate, control, bully and take more. And don't forget the support and manipulation on behalf of an apartheid fascistic state!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Dolores
    Capitalism; (bankers) all assets are owned by banking.
    Communism; (bankers) all state assets are turned over to communism.
    Lenin married to a banker's daughter.
    Trostsky married to a banker's daughter.
    Marxism a bankers ideology hidden so well within that to this day people can't see it.
    Stalin hated by bankers for making communism work for the state instead of the other way around.
    I don't know but I see a common denominator in this few examples. Now if we go further back in history I wonder what can be found...the same maybe?
    You want to find the truth follow the money trail...regardless of what name/label is attached to it.

    Speaking of banks….

    World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia…

    After World War II, the united Rockefeller-Morgan Kuhn, Loeb Eastern Establishment was not allowed to enjoy its financial and political supremacy unchallenged for long. “Cowboy” Sun Belt firms, maverick oil men and construction men…are also much less inclined to bail out the now Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and other Wall Street banks that loaned recklessly to Third World and Communist countries and expect the U.S. taxpayer – through outright taxes or the printing of U.S. dollars – to pick up the tab.

    -Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy

    https://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @wayfarer
    Communism ideology, just another soulless philosophical, social, political, and economic train wreck, that's done nothing more than to help litter humanity's pathetic history.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

    And those nasty communists firebombed major population centers and dropped nuclear weapons on major cities. Or something like that

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002 shows that the five million jews in the tzarist empire were ready for insurrection.
    As Von Plehve told Herzl in 1900 'I would gladly drown five million jews in the Black Sea, but it is impossible'.
    In 1900 the tenth tzarist assimilation commission resigned.
    A few years later Von Plehve was blown to pieces in the Warsaw railway station.
    The end of tzarist Russia began in 1800, with another division of Poland, thereafter the majority of jewry in the world, five million, lived in tzarist Russia.

    There was the Decemberist revolution 1820s. They were young aristocrats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Stupid and evil are the only things on the resumes of politicians and voters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. AP says:

    People who tolerate the existence of demonstrations such as the one pictures, yet whine about Banderist demonstrations in Ukraine, are simply hypocrites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I will let Banderists march side by side with Stalinists in the future Russian National State.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.
     
    It was so "negligible" that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway. Operations around Caspian also were supported quite well by British who had a huge vested interest in the region. It was not "negligible". Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement's benefactors. Where did I see numerous repeats of this scenario, with almost the same benefactors, in my lifetime, hm, I wonder? As per ports--there is a reason why ports (any ports) have a strategic (not even operational) significance.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).
     
    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe. Enough to recall with what Lloyd Geroge responded to Woodrow Wilson's appeal for war without reparations. I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia's casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain. But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke. Nor was international communist movement a fluke either, once one considers horrors and consequences WW I and later Great Depression brought to Europe.

    It was so “negligible” that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway.

    50,000 Czech POWS in a country of 170 million is not much. This indicates not a massive level of support for the Whites but the chaotic and collapsed state of the country, where small groups could accomplish a lot. The fact that the Bolsheviks couldn’t handle 50,000 Czech POWs tells us that they weren’t so strong at that time, either.

    Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement’s benefactors.

    Fragmentation was determined by geography; the Whites were largely cut off from each other. Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base. Even though they had the support of perhaps 25% of the country these factors were enough to allow them to hijack it.

    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe.

    And it may be that if Russia joined the circle of victors:

    1. Germany would have been too crushed to present as much of a threat. It may had less territory and less population.

    2. Russia would of course have had more territory.

    I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia’s casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain.

    It might have imposed enough, to prevent Germany from being in a position to try to conquer Europe.

    But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke.

    Even with the 1929 Depression Hitler barely seized power, with the threat of Bolshevism while not the main factor, being enough to give him the edge. That is rather clear.

    A non-Nazi reactionary German government was possible. It probably wouldn’t have been genocidal.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    50,000 Czech POWS in a country of 170 million is not much
     
    You know, I am always amused by people drawing direct linear connection between population size and some number taken completely out of the context. I wrote about a corps of Czechs which was one of many military contingents in Russia, others were 70 000 Japanese, 12 000 Americans, thousands of British. Obviously we discount 20000+ Greeks, then tens of thousands of other foreign powers who were directly involved into occupation and combat in Russia on the side of Whites and, guess what, this "number" in the "country of 170 million" suddenly grows to hundreds of thousands. But sure, let's throw these numbers away because we don't like Bolsheviks. I also do not necessarily like Bolsheviks but to completely ignore "into your face" a massive political, military and cultural fact of occupation--nah, let's throw this away. Surely, George F. Kennan was pursuing his own interests when dedicated the whole seminal work "Russia Leaves The War" to exactly this thing.

    https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Leaves-War-Soviet-American-Relations/dp/0691008418

    I have an original edition of this book.

    and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base
     
    Ah, really? So since when Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Kharkov, Yekaterinburg , Rostov, even Baku stopped being "industrial base" in Russian Empire? Sure, you should be aware of Samara being called Russian Chicago way before Revolution? I guess, for "scholars" of Solzhenitsified version of Civil War all those basic facts are not important but Bosheviks, see below

    Even though they had the support of perhaps 25% of the country these factors were enough to allow them to hijack it.
     
    Far from "hijacking" the country merely picked a political power from the ground where it was laying because nobody wanted it. Guess from three times whom I just quoted? Guessed? Well, I quoted Solzhenitsyn from "Russian Question In The End of 20th Century" --even this hack had to admit that.

    Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base.
     
    Apart from obvious mis-argumentation about "industrial base" you point is exactly what is this whole discussion about--you just listed qualities which separate great armies from merely good ones. Great strategies from mediocre ones. I also have a huge doubt about "25%".

    A non-Nazi reactionary German government was possible. It probably wouldn’t have been genocidal.
     
    Not under conditions of 1929 and economic catastrophe it brought.
    , @anon
    An unlikely scenario, for the head of the provisional government, Alexander Kerensky, was in favor of a peace without annexations or reparations. Unless one imagines the even more implausible scenario in which the White Army was able to defeat the Bolsheviks until 1918, it still beat the Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.
     
    I remember I was impressed by the chapter in Darkness at Noon where the interrogator explains how Russian peasants don't know that the day is divided into hours and hour into minutes.

    No, I don't think Japan, or any other society of similar caliber had gone through a transformation of this scale over the course of a dozen years or so.

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would've probably communicated in German, although I must say, most comments here would probably sound pretty much the same.

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would’ve probably communicated in German,

    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.
     
    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.

    That's, I imagine, what played a major, major role in determining the outcome of that war. And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started - from scratch, from nothing - only 10-12 years before the war. And for these projects to materialize, for things to happen on that scale within that time-frame, it certainly did require some serious determination and some serious sacrifices.

    So, this is the context.

    , @jilles dykstra
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008

    Hitler attacked Russia just three weeks before Stalin's planned attack on Germany
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. The only kind of leftism that will work is national-moral-leftism, aka neo-fascism.

    Mere material leftism will lead to lower-IQ workers or those who refuse to work feeling entitled and making demands for more free stuff and benefits. Also, even though workers are to be valued for what they do, they must not be made out to be holier-than-thou. This was the problem of communism that sanctified the proles as saints, the angels against the evil bourgeoisie. So, even as workers grew increasingly lazy, corrupt, and drunk, they could lean on the crutch of being noble proles. Communism was especially problematic as it attacked the very kind of people who can create, manage, and innovate industry: the bourgeoisie. This is why social-democracy made more sense. It allowed the bourgeoisie do their thing, and its socialism was based on taxing the private sector to provide basic services for all.

    Communist morality was deeply flawed as all moral-identity-systems are. Morality mustn’t be associated with an identity. Identity has value only as an identity, and morality is up to the individuals to live up to community standards. Turkish identity has cultural, historical, and political value. But it has no intrinsic moral value. A Turk is only moral when he acts moral as a conscientious individual.
    A genuine moral system is where the community upholds certain values and expects individuals to respect them and live up to them. But communism affixed morality to an identity. So, if you were bourgeois, you couldn’t be moral no matter how good and decent you were because you were of the ‘exploitative’ class. And if you were prole, you were good and justified simply because you belonged to the righteous class of noble victims. That kind of morality is too easy. Morality is communal(in encouragement and enforcement) but not collective(as identity). Community must uphold morality for individuals to live up to. A community cannot say that a certain group is moral in identity and that another group is immoral in identity.
    Nazism failed for that reason. Aryans were automatically good and Jews were automatically bad. Morality-by-identity makes people morally lazy. Look at Jews, blacks, and homos in the US. They are morally lazy because just being Jewish, black, or homo justifies them in the Current Year. In contrast, for the cursed groups, morality is an insurmountable challenge since their identity is affixed to evil no matter what they do to prove their moral worth. To be straight white male means you suck really bad in the Current Year. You can be the nicest guy, but PC says you’re immoral due to identity.

    So, we need true morality. Without morality, socialism just turns into a kind of populist material greed. It turns into a way for a lot of people to leech off society just by yammering about how he is a ‘victim’ or has ‘rights’ or has a sob story or whatever. It fosters countless petty greeds justified on bogus moral grounds.

    A sane and decent socialist takes from the system only because he is willing to contribute to the system. This is why Swedish, German, and Singaporean forms of socialism worked best. Germanic folks and Anglo-ized Chinese in Singapore were committed to individual responsibility & accountability and obligation to the larger community . It wasn’t just a socialism of taking from the system but a socialism adding to the system before taking from the system. Indeed, these cultures had a sense of shame for those who just leeched off the system. But in societies with lower moral character, as in Greece or Southern Italy, socialism just becomes a way for everyone to take without adding. They bitch and whine about their ‘rights’ and demand more freebies but never want to the system since they lack a trust culture and obligation-culture.

    The best way to maintain morality is by homogeneity, majority culture, or cultural unity. People are more likely to be moral, trusting, good-willed, generous, and mutual-goal-oriented if they are of a shared identity, history, and culture. This isn’t always the case, of course. After all, even a homogeneous Greek society will have lots of fiendish petty louts. And a homogeneous black society will have blacks running riot just the same. It’s in their blood.
    But things get even more problematic with more diversity. Diversity is manageable if there is a solid core of majority population. Failing that, each group thinks more tribal and sectarian. Singapore worked so far since Chinese made up the overwhelming majority. But if demographics were to change in the future, things can be very different.

    So, for a neo-left to work in Russia, it has to stress nation, culture, and shared history. This will create a sense of trust, brotherhood, and common purpose.
    Also, a culture of morality, responsibility, and discipline must be maintained. Russians won’t make socialism work if they are drunkards, louts who wrestle bears, or goofballs catching fish with penis. Russia must become like Big Prussia. This should be the real culture war for Russia. Waging a war on the culture of lethargy, slovenliness, carelessness, and recklessness to create a culture of probity, sobriety, dignity, and diligence.

    Also, it must be a neo-fascist socialism that makes peace with capitalism. This is where communism failed with its radical war on all business culture. Instead of being anti-business and anti-entrepreneurial, the neo-national-socialism must acknowledge that the bourgeoisie are the best creators and managers of industry.

    The problem, of course, is that the bourgeoisie may prefer profits and privilege over the interest of nation and people. That is why both the workers and the business class must be drummed into nationalism. National good trumps individual profits. Profits are good, but if they hurt the nation as a whole, the national good comes before individual profits. Profits must be of the kind that benefits all Russians as a people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    This is why social-democracy made more sense. It allowed the bourgeoisie do their thing, and its socialism was based on taxing the private sector to provide basic services for all.
     
    Creating a welcoming environment for productive people.

    A genuine moral system is where the community upholds certain values and expects individuals to respect them and live up to them. But communism affixed morality to an identity. So, if you were bourgeois, you couldn’t be moral no matter how good and decent you were because you were of the ‘exploitative’ class. And if you were prole, you were good and justified simply because you belonged to the righteous class of noble victims. That kind of morality is too easy.
     
    It's not morality at all, it's demonizing the opponents that you plan to dominate or destroy. It happens in every war.

    In contrast, for the cursed groups, morality is an insurmountable challenge since their identity is affixed to evil no matter what they do to prove their moral worth. To be straight white male means you suck really bad in the Current Year. You can be the nicest guy, but PC says you’re immoral due to identity.
     
    The current target being set up.

    But things get even more problematic with more diversity. Diversity is manageable if there is a solid core of majority population. Failing that, each group thinks more tribal and sectarian. Singapore worked so far since Chinese made up the overwhelming majority. But if demographics were to change in the future, things can be very different.
     
    In other words "divide and rule" doesn't work with a solid ethnic core majority.

    This is where communism failed with its radical war on all business culture. Instead of being anti-business and anti-entrepreneurial, the neo-national-socialism must acknowledge that the bourgeoisie are the best creators and managers of industry.
     
    Welcoming business and entrepreneurialism within the rules of the game (for example; pay taxes, no bailouts, no Special Interest Congressmen),

    The problem, of course, is that the bourgeoisie may prefer profits and privilege over the interest of nation and people.
     
    Of course they do. They live in a competitive business environment with a few winners and many losers. Profits allow them to survive another day. They don't care about the losers.

    That's why a country needs a "Guardian" class completely independent of commerce to set and enforce the rules - i.e. build solid walls around the reactor to protect the nation while still having access to the energy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Ivan says:
    @wayfarer
    Communism ideology, just another soulless philosophical, social, political, and economic train wreck, that's done nothing more than to help litter humanity's pathetic history.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

    Communists have the better press. As you can gauge from the clowns posting here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @James N. Kennett
    The Left abandoned the working classes long before the fall of the Soviet Union. In the USA and UK, the Left never forgave the native working classes for repeatedly electing Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher respectively. They switched their allegiance to the welfare-dependent underclass, racial minorities, and immigrants.

    “The Left abandoned the working classes long before the fall of the Soviet Union. In the USA and UK, the Left never forgave the native working classes for repeatedly electing Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher respectively.”

    I don’t think that was the real reason.

    If the working class had remained a powerful force, then things would have been different.

    But long before the rise of Reagan and Thatcher, the working class was increasingly becoming less powerful as white collar sector expanded. Also, innovation and international trade(promoted by the business class) cut into worker power and big labor. Consider the New Left in France, a nation where many workers continued to vote for the Communist Party. Even so, the New Left abandoned the declining working class and took up new causes.

    By the 90s rolled around, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton just didn’t see a lot of power or promise in big labor. They saw that the power had shifted to the Business Class. So, they threw their lot in with the globalists. The partnership of Big Money and Progressive Politics was only natural. Big Money had cash but lacked moral credentials. Progressives has moral capital(due to Civil Rights Movement and resistance to imperialism) but were short on funds. So, Big Money got benediction from the Progs, and Progs got funding from Big Money.

    Just think. If the Liberal Elites gave up on the workers because they voted for Thatcher/Reagan, why did they collaborate with Big Money that had supported Reagan and Thatcher?

    And look at the USSR. There, the workers had no choice but to support communism. But the Soviet elites decided to sink the whole system and create a new one because the world had turned post-industrial and they wanted a piece of the globalist-pie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Ivan says:
    @CanSpeccy
    So we to understand, are we, that leftism equates with Leninist-Stalinist tyranny, the secret police, slave labor, the gulag, and genocidal purges, whereas populism, representing the interests of the common people, is rightism?

    A true leftist, ie, one who identifies with the problems of the poor and powerless, George Orwell, saw the Soviet Union of his time for the horror it was. Communists as usual make a big play of humanity and electrification when it wins them something. They themselves merely wish to replace the current set of oppressors with worse oppression of their own.

    Read More
    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Ivan
    In addition to the immortal volumes of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest (yes I know he was the one who came up with the exaggerated 60 million figure), there are these books based on the opened archives that should put to rest any reasonable doubts as to the sheer evil of Stalin.

    https://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Biography-Dictator-Oleg-Khlevniuk/dp/0300219784

    https://www.amazon.com/Smersh-Stalins-Secret-Military-Counterintelligence/dp/1849541086

    https://www.amazon.com/Scorched-Earth-Stalins-Yale-Hoover-Authoritarian/dp/0300136986

    The last of which will no doubt draw the usual misdirection from leftists about the authour.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Ivan says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Morgan Philips Price (edited Tania Rose), ‘Dispatches from the Weimar Republic, Versailles and German Fascism’, London 1999

    The book contains observations of travel by train through the Ukraine, where on each railway station desperate Ukrainian farmers, evicted from their farms, tried to sell possessions they had been able to take with them, in order to buy food.

    Russian apologists are in a bind. To acknowledge that forced collectivisation caused the multi-million deaths in the Ukraine, would be giving aid and comfort to the Banderists. Truth as is usual with the Communists, is mere expediency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Ivan says:
    @jilles dykstra
    No.
    Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.
    After 1991 there were very few jews in Russia, Stalin did not like them.
    They left in large numbers for Israel.
    As Shamir's parents did.

    The (leftist) Jewish love-hate relationship with the Soviet Union can be summarised as follows.

    1917-25
    -Dawn of new humanity.
    -Anti-war heroes (Brest-Litovsk).
    -Revenge for hundred pogroms, murder of the Royal Family etc.
    -destruction of the Russian native intelligentsia, clerical leadership, painful but
    necessary for the rise of the proletariat represented by themselves etc, etc.

    1926-1940
    -Communism in one country? Big mistake.
    -Trotsky will surely come back with internationalism
    -Stalin is an antisemite
    -Maybe we went a bit too far

    1941-1947
    -Stalin, hero of anti-fascist resistance
    -Stalin, hero of true Zionism
    -We had good jobs with the Comintern
    -We had to clean out the remaining fascists in Eastern Europe

    1948-1953
    -Stalin chews slowly.

    1954-1967
    -The Soviet Union is no longer the hope of the working class

    1968-present
    -Russia; we hardly knew you

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Ivan says:
    @Maxim Amplikov
    This article is meant as some sort of parody, right?

    Seems like it. Though with Mr Shamir it is hard to tell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Ivan says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Lenin may have meant to furher progress.
    On his death bed he tried to prevent that Stalin was his successor.
    As with most revolutions or coups, progress took a long time to become visible.
    The average income per head in tzarist Russia in 1905, writing from memory, was just re established at the end of the thirties.
    Nothing special, in the Dutch Indies the 1940 level was reached again in the seventies Indonesia.
    Very expensive, revolutions and coups.
    Our Dutch Troelstra in 1918 was a wise man, during ten days in 1918 he had the chance for revoluion, he chose slow improvement, it succeeded.

    2-3% growth which ministers of the type of Stolypin or Witte could easily have delivered while making the rounds of bordellos, would easily have put the Russians in the same class as the Japanese, without shedding an once of blood. They would have done even better given their natural endowments in water, land, energy resources and minerals. But that is too inconvenient for the bloody communist fools to accept. So they have to talk of Tsarist oppression and the indolence of the aristocracy, as though things were any different with the mass of the aristocrats elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @utu
    So they have to talk of Tsarist oppression and the indolence of the aristocracy

    In fact there was an indolence of the police apparatus (an infiltration) that for strange reasons was unable to lock up all those revolutionaries. Liberal ideas were too readily adopted in Russia (also an infiltration) that resulted in the least oppressive and much more lenient legal system than anything in the West. For similar anti state offenses in England or America people would hang and their families would be banished for ever and their names would be erased from memories while in Russia at best they were exiled and their wives and lovers could accompany them and from which they could easily escape... It was Russia's well meaning intelligentsia, its naivety and inferiority complex with respect to the West that opened up Russia for infiltration that weakened it to the point that a gang of paid criminals, hired guns, provocateurs (also called as revolutionaries) could accomplish the coup for money paid by western bankers who wanted to see Russia's destruction. Killing Russia was the greatest crime of the 20 century. The perpetrators have not been punished yet.

    Israel Shamir and several commenters here who sing apologetics for Bolsheviks and Stalin should be ashamed of themselves. Ill will or useful idiocy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Ivan says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.
     
    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and "Russia Which We Lost" is a complete baloney--by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html

    But by far more impressive, however, is the report of Russian Medical Society on the state of child mortality in Russia (circa 1909)--a very long report and an eye-opening one. Russia paid way more in "violent deaths" in WW I and Civil War than any GULAG (most of it figment of imagination by Solzh) could have ever achieved.

    P.S. There is an interesting book from 1912 by Milyukov "Russia And Her Current Crisis" (from 1910 IIRC) in English, I believe Chicago University Press edition, at least I had this one. Highly recommended.

    Your type of counterfactual analyses are a dime a dozen. Given sufficient capital, labour and resources , much of which Russia had, industrialisation was inevitable. It just required a certain direction, which the Tsarists could have easily provided by appointing a few competent men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Andrei posts are based upon factual evidence. Your mental dyarrea is based upon speculations, wishful thinking and should would arguments sprinkled with heavy dose of prejudice. It is comforting to give assessments from comfy armchair but Russian people who were living in the period would disagree with you. Considering the people who lost Civil war to Reds, they also lost war to Japan and what chances they would have against Nazi gagernaut which was coming Russia way regardless of Civil war outcome. Lenin and Stalin and their party saved Russia from certain defeat and death of the nation. They turned Russia into superpower. It is the hard fact which is here. Yours are pure speculations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Ivan says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Stalin's crimes are well documented. There is one mitigating circumstance though:
    Stalin killed Jewish revolutionaries, that's why the Jewish left hates him. The same people tend to excuse Trotsky, who was far more destructive and dangerous individual.

    Hence the confusion: was Stalin really a bad guy since he had defeated Hitler?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Ivan says:
    @Alden
    Actually,Lenin began exterminating non communists within days of his arrival in Moscow. And it didn't stop until Stalin's death.

    Who were promptly replaced by the upcoming children of the proletariat. Hence the natural diffidence to look with clear eyes at the genocidal bloodshed that preceded their rise. Hell, even Putin is prepared to accept that Uncle Joe was a mass murderer of historic proportions, when he compared his place in Russian history with that of Oliver Cromwell. But the true believers have to think that the Gulag was some kind of Russian joke from Solzhenitysn. Their bones should have been in it, as written somewhere in the Gulag Archipelago.

    Some kind soul has uploaded the three volumes of the Gulag Archipelago onto archive.org.
    Please do not under any circumstances read the abridged book version.

    https://archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Joe Wong says:
    @wayfarer
    Communism ideology, just another soulless philosophical, social, political, and economic train wreck, that's done nothing more than to help litter humanity's pathetic history.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

    The Five-Eyes and its minions are where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of the very madness of colonialsim, of the crusades and the slave trade. Cathedrads and palaces, museums and theatres, train stations – all had been construted on horrid foundations of those hundreds of millions’ bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of pluder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’ something that gets almost never addressed, let alone critized.

    Comparing the crimes against humanity committed by the communism and Nazism with the Five-Eyes and its minions, it is like a child play.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Ivan says:
    @Ivan
    A true leftist, ie, one who identifies with the problems of the poor and powerless, George Orwell, saw the Soviet Union of his time for the horror it was. Communists as usual make a big play of humanity and electrification when it wins them something. They themselves merely wish to replace the current set of oppressors with worse oppression of their own.

    In addition to the immortal volumes of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest (yes I know he was the one who came up with the exaggerated 60 million figure), there are these books based on the opened archives that should put to rest any reasonable doubts as to the sheer evil of Stalin.

    https://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Biography-Dictator-Oleg-Khlevniuk/dp/0300219784

    https://www.amazon.com/Smersh-Stalins-Secret-Military-Counterintelligence/dp/1849541086

    https://www.amazon.com/Scorched-Earth-Stalins-Yale-Hoover-Authoritarian/dp/0300136986

    The last of which will no doubt draw the usual misdirection from leftists about the authour.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. utu says:
    @Ivan
    2-3% growth which ministers of the type of Stolypin or Witte could easily have delivered while making the rounds of bordellos, would easily have put the Russians in the same class as the Japanese, without shedding an once of blood. They would have done even better given their natural endowments in water, land, energy resources and minerals. But that is too inconvenient for the bloody communist fools to accept. So they have to talk of Tsarist oppression and the indolence of the aristocracy, as though things were any different with the mass of the aristocrats elsewhere.

    So they have to talk of Tsarist oppression and the indolence of the aristocracy

    In fact there was an indolence of the police apparatus (an infiltration) that for strange reasons was unable to lock up all those revolutionaries. Liberal ideas were too readily adopted in Russia (also an infiltration) that resulted in the least oppressive and much more lenient legal system than anything in the West. For similar anti state offenses in England or America people would hang and their families would be banished for ever and their names would be erased from memories while in Russia at best they were exiled and their wives and lovers could accompany them and from which they could easily escape… It was Russia’s well meaning intelligentsia, its naivety and inferiority complex with respect to the West that opened up Russia for infiltration that weakened it to the point that a gang of paid criminals, hired guns, provocateurs (also called as revolutionaries) could accomplish the coup for money paid by western bankers who wanted to see Russia’s destruction. Killing Russia was the greatest crime of the 20 century. The perpetrators have not been punished yet.

    Israel Shamir and several commenters here who sing apologetics for Bolsheviks and Stalin should be ashamed of themselves. Ill will or useful idiocy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    I have to agree. Stalin escaped from Siberian exiles numerous times. The Tsarists did not have the refined Panopticon apparatus, built on mass murder, torture and rape that the Soviet state perfected in a couple of years. When Trosky's wife was lamenting the fate of her friends and relations in the Gulag, did she give a single thought to the millions who died at the hands of the checkhists? The British had their own game going with the Russians that made it convenient for them to paint Russia in the darkest colours. They were ones who armed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War. It came back and bit them in the ass.

    For similar anti state offenses in England or America people would hang and their families would be banished for ever and their names would be erased from memories while in Russia at best they were exiled and their wives and lovers could accompany them and from which they could easily escape…. Ain't that the truth. No good deed goes unpunished as the Americans say.
    , @Ivan
    Killing Russia was the greatest crime of the 20 century.

    The greatest act of political vandalism in world history - paraphrasing Martin Malia. Without the bloody communists, their various genocides and the reactions that they intentionally provoked, the 20th century would have been a far happier and prosperous century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.
     
    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and "Russia Which We Lost" is a complete baloney--by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html

    But by far more impressive, however, is the report of Russian Medical Society on the state of child mortality in Russia (circa 1909)--a very long report and an eye-opening one. Russia paid way more in "violent deaths" in WW I and Civil War than any GULAG (most of it figment of imagination by Solzh) could have ever achieved.

    P.S. There is an interesting book from 1912 by Milyukov "Russia And Her Current Crisis" (from 1910 IIRC) in English, I believe Chicago University Press edition, at least I had this one. Highly recommended.

    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and “Russia Which We Lost” is a complete baloney–by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html

    The information from the blog post you link to is taken from the work of this weirdo, “a Soviet-born Russian-Canadian scholar and political writer. He is a member of the organizations «Freedom From Religion Foundation» and «Defend Science» (US)…Battler describes himself as a follower of the Marxist-Leninist teaching. Battler also authored the 13 commandments of the roslyane, which he promotes as a replacement for the well-known Biblical commandments. In Battler’s theory the roslyane are the people who should emerge in Russia after the current system is replaced.”

    The chart in the beginning of the article shows that Russia had already eclipsed France in steel production and railroads. But it is merely a snapshot. Much better is to look at the change in industrialization from 1880 to 1913.

    Here is a nice chart

    Between 1880 and 1913 Russia’s coal and pig iron production increased about 10x and its oil production increased 20x. In the 1890s Russia had the highest industrial growth rate in the world.

    Russia “fell behind” only in per capita terms – because Russia had a TFR in 1900 of 7.5 – highest in the world! Rapid population growth and expansion surpassed even its stunning industrial and economic growth, compared to western European countries. If tsarist-level fertility continued for another two generations there would be hundreds of millions of Russians.

    If my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia’s actual “proletariat”, that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia’s population

    Sorry, your memory has failed you in this case.

    http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/labour_russian_empire

    At the start of World War I about 15 million Russians worked in factories, construction, railroads, and mines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Truth is no defence against the surreal reasoning of communist apologists. When the German General Staff was war gaming in their smoke rooms before WWI, one of their major concerns was the rise in the industrial might of the Russians. The Russians just had to copy the West, the same as the Japanese did all through 1950-1980, to inevitably rise to the level of the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Ivan says:
    @utu
    So they have to talk of Tsarist oppression and the indolence of the aristocracy

    In fact there was an indolence of the police apparatus (an infiltration) that for strange reasons was unable to lock up all those revolutionaries. Liberal ideas were too readily adopted in Russia (also an infiltration) that resulted in the least oppressive and much more lenient legal system than anything in the West. For similar anti state offenses in England or America people would hang and their families would be banished for ever and their names would be erased from memories while in Russia at best they were exiled and their wives and lovers could accompany them and from which they could easily escape... It was Russia's well meaning intelligentsia, its naivety and inferiority complex with respect to the West that opened up Russia for infiltration that weakened it to the point that a gang of paid criminals, hired guns, provocateurs (also called as revolutionaries) could accomplish the coup for money paid by western bankers who wanted to see Russia's destruction. Killing Russia was the greatest crime of the 20 century. The perpetrators have not been punished yet.

    Israel Shamir and several commenters here who sing apologetics for Bolsheviks and Stalin should be ashamed of themselves. Ill will or useful idiocy?

    I have to agree. Stalin escaped from Siberian exiles numerous times. The Tsarists did not have the refined Panopticon apparatus, built on mass murder, torture and rape that the Soviet state perfected in a couple of years. When Trosky’s wife was lamenting the fate of her friends and relations in the Gulag, did she give a single thought to the millions who died at the hands of the checkhists? The British had their own game going with the Russians that made it convenient for them to paint Russia in the darkest colours. They were ones who armed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War. It came back and bit them in the ass.

    For similar anti state offenses in England or America people would hang and their families would be banished for ever and their names would be erased from memories while in Russia at best they were exiled and their wives and lovers could accompany them and from which they could easily escape…. Ain’t that the truth. No good deed goes unpunished as the Americans say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Ivan says:
    @utu
    So they have to talk of Tsarist oppression and the indolence of the aristocracy

    In fact there was an indolence of the police apparatus (an infiltration) that for strange reasons was unable to lock up all those revolutionaries. Liberal ideas were too readily adopted in Russia (also an infiltration) that resulted in the least oppressive and much more lenient legal system than anything in the West. For similar anti state offenses in England or America people would hang and their families would be banished for ever and their names would be erased from memories while in Russia at best they were exiled and their wives and lovers could accompany them and from which they could easily escape... It was Russia's well meaning intelligentsia, its naivety and inferiority complex with respect to the West that opened up Russia for infiltration that weakened it to the point that a gang of paid criminals, hired guns, provocateurs (also called as revolutionaries) could accomplish the coup for money paid by western bankers who wanted to see Russia's destruction. Killing Russia was the greatest crime of the 20 century. The perpetrators have not been punished yet.

    Israel Shamir and several commenters here who sing apologetics for Bolsheviks and Stalin should be ashamed of themselves. Ill will or useful idiocy?

    Killing Russia was the greatest crime of the 20 century.

    The greatest act of political vandalism in world history – paraphrasing Martin Malia. Without the bloody communists, their various genocides and the reactions that they intentionally provoked, the 20th century would have been a far happier and prosperous century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. […] première publication: The Unz Review. […]

    Read More
  104. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Japan is a global-scale episode of shared psychosis.
     
    I remember I was impressed by the chapter in Darkness at Noon where the interrogator explains how Russian peasants don't know that the day is divided into hours and hour into minutes.

    No, I don't think Japan, or any other society of similar caliber had gone through a transformation of this scale over the course of a dozen years or so.

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would've probably communicated in German, although I must say, most comments here would probably sound pretty much the same.

    There are anecdotal accounts of Irish peasants receiving the news of the 1969 moon landings with disbelief since they believed that God lived in the skies above.

    In other words, typical religious peasant attitudes that are gradually stamped out with education (which would have automatically happened – primary enrollment was around 80% in the last years of Imperial Russia, and the last cohort to undergo its schooling was more literate than the generation that received their schooling in the 1920s).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @AP
    People who tolerate the existence of demonstrations such as the one pictures, yet whine about Banderist demonstrations in Ukraine, are simply hypocrites.

    I will let Banderists march side by side with Stalinists in the future Russian National State.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @AP

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would’ve probably communicated in German,
     
    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.

    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.

    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.

    That’s, I imagine, what played a major, major role in determining the outcome of that war. And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started – from scratch, from nothing – only 10-12 years before the war. And for these projects to materialize, for things to happen on that scale within that time-frame, it certainly did require some serious determination and some serious sacrifices.

    So, this is the context.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Could not have been achieved at evolutionary 2-3/ annual growth. Considering international situation there was no other way.
    , @AP

    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.
     
    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world (see the link in my other post). It naturally would have been able to produce many tanks in the 1940s.

    And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started – from scratch, from nothing – only 10-12 years before the war
     
    Had industrialization not been interrupted it would not have been necessary to start things from scratch.

    One thing, however, was that natural industrial growth would have probably been more centered on already-industrialized and less remote areas such as Donbas and Moscow, which would have been more strategically vulnerable. This, of course, would have been balanced by the fact that Russia would have had a few million more conscriptable young men, a larger buffer zone due to no territorial losses after World War I, a population whose soldiers were less likely to desert en masse in the first months of the war due to the hope they they were getting liberated from the Bolshevik nightmare, and likely a weaker Germany due to Russia having been able to get something out of Germany at Versailles.

    So overall, the hard truth is that the Bolshevik sacrifices were for nothing. The excuses are just a way of finding meaning in the senseless tragedy, a healthy way of approaching it, although not reality-based.
    , @Miro23

    That’s, I imagine, what played a major, major role in determining the outcome of that war. And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started – from scratch, from nothing – only 10-12 years before the war. And for these projects to materialize, for things to happen on that scale within that time-frame, it certainly did require some serious determination and some serious sacrifices.
     
    And Hitler was aware of this. Like he said,

    (300) "If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! .....They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed - and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works."

    And about American production:

    (135) "The great success of the Americans consists essentially of the fact that they produce quantitatively as much as we do with two-thirds less labour. We've always been hypnotized by the slogan: "The craftmanship of the German worker".
    ....... "In America everything is machine made , so they can employ the most utter cretins in their factories."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Ivan says:
    @AP

    Actually, the favorite meme of 1913 and “Russia Which We Lost” is a complete baloney–by 1913 Russia was losing competition to leading industrial powers. You may draw some information about real state of the affairs here:

    http://nikolay-siya.livejournal.com/698351.html
     
    The information from the blog post you link to is taken from the work of this weirdo, "a Soviet-born Russian-Canadian scholar and political writer. He is a member of the organizations «Freedom From Religion Foundation» and «Defend Science» (US)...Battler describes himself as a follower of the Marxist-Leninist teaching. Battler also authored the 13 commandments of the roslyane, which he promotes as a replacement for the well-known Biblical commandments. In Battler's theory the roslyane are the people who should emerge in Russia after the current system is replaced."

    The chart in the beginning of the article shows that Russia had already eclipsed France in steel production and railroads. But it is merely a snapshot. Much better is to look at the change in industrialization from 1880 to 1913.

    Here is a nice chart

    Between 1880 and 1913 Russia's coal and pig iron production increased about 10x and its oil production increased 20x. In the 1890s Russia had the highest industrial growth rate in the world.

    Russia "fell behind" only in per capita terms - because Russia had a TFR in 1900 of 7.5 - highest in the world! Rapid population growth and expansion surpassed even its stunning industrial and economic growth, compared to western European countries. If tsarist-level fertility continued for another two generations there would be hundreds of millions of Russians.

    If my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia’s actual “proletariat”, that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia’s population
     
    Sorry, your memory has failed you in this case.

    http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/labour_russian_empire

    At the start of World War I about 15 million Russians worked in factories, construction, railroads, and mines.

    Truth is no defence against the surreal reasoning of communist apologists. When the German General Staff was war gaming in their smoke rooms before WWI, one of their major concerns was the rise in the industrial might of the Russians. The Russians just had to copy the West, the same as the Japanese did all through 1950-1980, to inevitably rise to the level of the West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @jilles dykstra
    No.
    Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.
    After 1991 there were very few jews in Russia, Stalin did not like them.
    They left in large numbers for Israel.
    As Shamir's parents did.

    Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.

    No, they were not. Othervise – go and prove your ballsy claim

    After 1991 there were very few jews in Russia, Stalin did not like them.

    Because they fucking buggered off via emigration once given a chance – either to Israel (not that many), Europe (even less) or to America (Canada and the US – the vast majority). Stalin has nothing to do with that. Remember, Alyssa Rosenbaum (future Ayn Rand) emigrated in 1930s – during Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    jilles dykstra wrote: 'Bolsjewists to a large extent were jews.'
    To which sad little liar, Lyttenburgh, replied:
    'No, they were not. Othervise – go and prove your ballsy claim'.

    Putin, 80-85% Bolsheviks Revolution were Jews
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6p1zxKnDeM
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-first-soviet-government-was-mostly-jewish/
    Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish

    The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

     

    Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:

    Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins.

    Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

    The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.
     
    Louis Rapoport, Stalin's War Against the Jews (New York: Free Press, 1990), pp. 30, 31, 37. Also pp. 43, 44, 45, 49, 50.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Anatoly Karlin

    They modernised their country, they gave people hope, they offered a choice for the workers.
     
    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.

    The capitalists did not despair in 1917, the communists should not despair in 2017. It seems that there is no other way, no shortcut: the world needs new Lenins and Stalins.
     
    I hope all further such experiments are carried out in the US. Or Sweden. Or Israel. But not Russia.

    As things are, a French leftist has no choice but to vote for LePen. Le Pen is not Geert Wilders, she is not a single cause person. She has strong Communist support.
     
    12% of Melenchon voters say they're going to vote for Le Pen out of the other candidates - that's just a bit higher than the percentage of Bernie supporters who defected to Trump.

    It would be nice if the Alt Left was to become a thing, but realistically, its a fringe movement and will probably remain so.

    Was happening under Imperial Russia, and with several orders of magnitude fewer violent deaths.

    It was hardly happening at all, as it was happening on several orders of magnitude lesser scale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @jilles dykstra
    Because communism began among jews, is my idea.
    They were the only poor people in tzarist Russia who could read and write.
    Only in 1939 Stalin fired his jewish foreign secretary, replaced him with Molotov, in order to strike a deal with Von Ribbentrop.

    Because communism began among jews, is my idea.

    Not true. You are a liar, userperson “jilles dykstra”.

    Only in 1939 Stalin fired his jewish foreign secretary, replaced him with Molotov, in order to strike a deal with Von Ribbentrop.

    The reasons for the dismissal of Litvinov has nothing to do with him being a Jew. He was too pro-British and his attempts to forge an alliance with the so-called “Western Democracies” failed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    The reasons for the dismissal of Litvinov has nothing to do with him being a Jew. He was too pro-British and his attempts to forge an alliance with the so-called “Western Democracies” failed.
     
    It is true that Litvinov's attempt at creating an alliance with the Britain and France had failed. But it is also true that the Germans would never have granted him a diplomatic visa because he was Jewish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Felix Keverich
    Stalin's crimes are well documented. There is one mitigating circumstance though:
    Stalin killed Jewish revolutionaries, that's why the Jewish left hates him. The same people tend to excuse Trotsky, who was far more destructive and dangerous individual.

    Stalin’s crimes are well documented.

    Which crimes? No idea what you are talking about.

    Read More
    • Troll: CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Alden
    Actually,Lenin began exterminating non communists within days of his arrival in Moscow. And it didn't stop until Stalin's death.

    Actually,Lenin began exterminating non communists within days of his arrival in Moscow. And it didn’t stop until Stalin’s death.

    Source. Or. GTFO.

    It might surprise you, but – no, he didn’t. There was an attempt of the counter-revolutionary coup in Moscow (and it happen without Lening in the city) which was dealt with. Besides, the vast majority of the population were not (yet) members of the Communist Party. Following your logic, Boskheviks must have exterminated about 90% of Moscow’s population. Which didn’t happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Alden
    Shamir is against abortion because it murders unborn babies. Yet he worships Lenin, the Cheka, Trotsky, Mao, Chou en Lai and their minions who massacred 200 million of their own citizens.

    That's as hypocritical as vegetarians who are pro abortion.

    Shamir is against abortion because it murders unborn babies. Yet he worships Lenin, the Cheka, Trotsky, Mao, Chou en Lai and their minions who massacred 200 million of their own citizens.

    StronK Kool Aid you are drinking here, userperson “Alden”. Source about 200 millions, plox?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Read the Black Book of Communism. The 200 million are their own citizens killed by the Russian and Chinese communist regimes, not those killed in wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Sergey Krieger
    Good article but I sense desperation. Anfortunately Western socialism sold it's soul long before 1991. Lenin saved the Left and turned their into practise. Now it was squandered and considering people of Lenin and Stalin caliber are not coming often we are stuck with analitics who analyze but don't act as Giants did. Unfortunatelly suffering inflicted by capitalists will have to reach new highs untill most of the people get it and new Giants appear. Right now people are atomized and disunited. The question of what is to be done is again here. There is no secret of course. We often hear that revolution are caused by Jews, bankers, intelligence services and other outside influence. This is of course nonsense. Every revolution or uprising has local origin and causes. However without progressive organized force in thele place the thing is just a headless chicken which can be led in any direction and used by ulterior forces. This is exactly what has been happening in recent years. I am talking so called color revolution. In 1917 there was Bolsheviks party with Lenin which took masses in right direction and in 40+ years Soviet Russia was sending rockets into space and had other equally great things. We also have Maidan where revolution was highjacked by outside forces in absence of progressive force and we see how things are turning. In short, instead of crying, those who constitute legitimate Left should abandon wrong alliances and concentrate on building party and working with working people against capitalistic parasites to be ready for opportunity which eventually will come.

    We also have Maidan where revolution

    Oh, the obligatoryy fly in the ointment! It was not a revolution to begin with – the socio-economical formation remained the same. The Oligarchs just swapped a figurehead.

    Othervise the comment is good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Sergey Krieger
    Agree 100 percent. Frankly, it is hard to imagine what would happen with Russia without October 1917. No wonder majority senses it despite decades of brainwahing. Civil war bloodshed was started by white movement supported by Western powers.

    Frankly, it is hard to imagine what would happen with Russia without October 1917

    See interwar China. Turn up to 11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @AP

    And had it not happened so fast in the 1930s USSR, today we would’ve probably communicated in German,
     
    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.

    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008

    Hitler attacked Russia just three weeks before Stalin’s planned attack on Germany

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Ivan
    Your type of counterfactual analyses are a dime a dozen. Given sufficient capital, labour and resources , much of which Russia had, industrialisation was inevitable. It just required a certain direction, which the Tsarists could have easily provided by appointing a few competent men.

    Andrei posts are based upon factual evidence. Your mental dyarrea is based upon speculations, wishful thinking and should would arguments sprinkled with heavy dose of prejudice. It is comforting to give assessments from comfy armchair but Russian people who were living in the period would disagree with you. Considering the people who lost Civil war to Reds, they also lost war to Japan and what chances they would have against Nazi gagernaut which was coming Russia way regardless of Civil war outcome. Lenin and Stalin and their party saved Russia from certain defeat and death of the nation. They turned Russia into superpower. It is the hard fact which is here. Yours are pure speculations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Anatoly Karlin
    Resolving the peasant question by expropriating and killing off the most capable of them and returning the rest to something more redolent of serfdom.

    The Bolsheviks took control of the major European Russian industrial cities early on (thanks in significant part to our Latvian friends). From then on, the defeat of the Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also - supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).

    Resolving the peasant question by expropriating and killing off the most capable of them and returning the rest to something more redolent of serfdom.

    1) Kulaks were not the most capable. They were most unscrupulous and low on morals bloodsukers, literal miroyeds.

    2) Kolkhozes were not a serfdom. C’mon, Tolya, prove me wrong!

    The Bolsheviks took control of the major European Russian industrial cities early on (thanks in significant part to our Latvian friends)

    The Bolsheviks took control over the vast majority of the former Russian Empire early on thanks to the Soviets. Were all Soviets staffed to the gills with the Latvian Rifles troopers?

    Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.

    Odessa, Vladivostok, Murmansk, Archangelsk, Baku, etc – just “a few far-flung ports”? Ever studied Japanese intervention on the Far East? Of course you didn’t, Tolya. You know precious little in many spheres of knowlege and try to compensate ignorance with chutzpah

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes

    That, ah, “fluke”, is called a coup d’etat and the Reichstag fire conspiracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    1) Kulaks were not the most capable. They were most unscrupulous and low on morals bloodsukers, literal miroyeds.
     
    wow

    looks like you missed your opportunity to be one of Kaganovich's NKVD goons- forcing men, women and children to die slowly and excruciatingly of starvation in front of their fiedish eyes.

    what is it about being a hate-consumed POS that people like you took so much pleasure in torturing to death a race of people that were/are far, far better than you in every way. It's like how some blacks torture to death their white victims. I guess when you're morally and spiritually and physically mediocre, (or worse) nothing gives you more pleasure than torturing to death a people who are your superiors in every way, shape and form.

    The Kulaks were hated because they were successful - read intelligent and hard working and capable with something called raw, sheer human ability. IOW they were 'privileged' with good genes- and their success as farmers was a direct expression of those good genes.

    And the mantra that runs though men like Kaganovich (and his assorted Soviet sub-human goons and apologists) is to *kill the best of them*, huh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Andrei Martyanov
    If my Alzheimer doesn't fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia's actual "proletariat", that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia's population--a telling number, really. Especially against the background of low automation of industries then. Corruption in that sphere was also rampant and often resulted in faulty weapons, bad munitions etc. Stalin, in his program article and the speech to industrial management in 1931 was absolutely correct when stated: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. "(c)

    Putin today is facing a similar, albeit much much less (on several orders of magnitude) aggravated problem (and all that thanks to the heritage of those very Stalinists) . If not for the Soviet heritage which allowed Russia to largely overcome, or begin overcoming, this problem, "democratic", "liberal" Russia would have been reduced to a third world shit-hole and, eventually, broken up.

    If my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia’s actual “proletariat”, that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia’s population–a telling number, really.

    More than that, actually. 3,7% as for 1897. Probably 5_% as for 1917

    Putin today is facing a similar, albeit much much less (on several orders of magnitude) aggravated problem (and all that thanks to the heritage of those very Stalinists)

    That’s why the West hates us. That’s why they really hate Stalin – due to nukes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    More than that, actually. 3,7% as for 1897. Probably 5_% as for 1917
     
    Possibly, I took the number from the top of my head. Still, the number was very small.

    That’s why the West hates us. That’s why they really hate Stalin – due to nukes.
     
    Not only, most Western high school students would have had huge difficulties surviving an average Soviet public school curriculum in STEM. Admiral Rickover, not without justification, stated that Soviet public education (schools) was clear and present danger to US national security. Obviously, rebuilding the country from utter destruction after WW II completely out of own resources etc. A lot of things are hated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.
     
    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.

    That's, I imagine, what played a major, major role in determining the outcome of that war. And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started - from scratch, from nothing - only 10-12 years before the war. And for these projects to materialize, for things to happen on that scale within that time-frame, it certainly did require some serious determination and some serious sacrifices.

    So, this is the context.

    Could not have been achieved at evolutionary 2-3/ annual growth. Considering international situation there was no other way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Could not have been achieved at evolutionary 2-3/ annual growth. Considering international situation there was no other way.
     
    I wonder how much of the growth was due to arms shipments from the "Allies." Apparently Stalin obtained enough war materiel through the Persian Corridor to equip 60 Soviet Divisions.

    Also, wasn't the largest ruck factory in the world built in the USSR by Americans? And how about trade with the West through guys like Armand Hammer?

    I think Wall Street was a significant supporter of the Bolshies too, as suggested by the famous image by Robert Minor.

    "Dee-Lighted!" by Robert Minor in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1911).

    Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Immediately behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert-Minor-Dee-Lighted-1911.png

     

    I'm asking because I really don't know, but would like to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @jilles dykstra
    Correct, even Chrustjow was flabbergasted when he saw how USA workers lived.
    The communist system, without the profit steering mechanism, was unable to produce consumer goods.
    The system fell apart with communications, notably tv, it no longer was possible to hide that the average person in the west had a far better life.

    Correct, even Chrustjow was flabbergasted when he saw how USA workers lived.

    Remind me, how many people did the USA lost in the WW2? How much of its territory had been turned into a rubble?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Rurik

    The main problem in this country would be the Jews.
     
    I certainly don't often disagree with you Seamus, but here I do.

    the main problem with this country isn't Jews or blacks

    it's whites

    there's nothing that Jews or blacks (or Mexicans or Muslims or anyone else) would be able to do without the eager complicity of the throngs and legions of venal, craven, white male cowards and traitors.

    take for instance virtually every single white Republican in the US congress. Whores and liars and traitors to a man and women.

    how well would the Jews or anyone else be able to harm this nation and its people were it not for the McCains and Bush's and Trumps of this country?

    how many wars or immigration treasons would be possible were it not for lying white men on the television or standing in the church pulpits shilling for America's worst enemies?

    how many wars would we be in if all the white men in congress and the media stopped playing along with the evil schemes? And forget the Democrats, because at least they're honest and say they want to destroy whitey and his evil patriarchy, blah, blah. It's not them. Rather it's the Republicans who say they want to help this country and its people, but then on cue take their bag of thirty shekels and betray us all every single fucking time!

    So no, you can't blame the blacks for being blacks, and often violent and hostile. We all know they're that way, but it was whitey that funded the welfare programs that exploded their numbers in the inner cities, and thereby created the horrible conditions that they languish in.

    You can't blame the Jews for seeking to further Jewish interests, because we all know that's what they do, and so they should be challenged when those interests are contradictory to the rest of America's. But they never are, because of the infinite venality and dishonestly and duplicity and craven, sniveling cowardice of all the white men who go along with all of this bullshit.

    Sheldon Adlelson would get nowhere were it not for "men" like Mitt Romney and McCain and Bush and Cheney and Trump and all the other whores of Zion.

    I don't blame Adelson for inviting them all over to lick his bathroom floors clean to prove their fealty, I blame the obeisant "men" on their knees slurping and groveling and offering up their services.

    And all the American and other Western men too bovine to pay enough attention to see what rotten cowards and traitors they've elected to represent them.

    I'd froth some more but I've got to go ;)

    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors? You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don’t blame all whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors?
     
    yes, Ron Paul was just such a choice. Sure, they cheated him and used every underhanded device to destroy his candidacy, but I remember being appalled at how few people (white or otherwise) had any interest in his message. I was one of the enthusiasts, but few people (white or otherwise) I knew were on board- (in spite of my best efforts, although I'm sure I did convince a few to take a second look). For the gals, he was too old and thin and whiney sounding. For a lot of (white) men I knew/know, he just didn't resonate with their agendas. White liberals called him a 'white supremacist', because he supported borders and the Constitution, and presumably equal treatment- which mean no more Affirmative Action. Conservatives and Christians didn't seem to like him because he wasn't rabidly against abortion or speaking of Jesus or 'Israel' like Dubya did. It was all about their narrow agendas, and 'what good is he going to do for me personally'?

    (most of the people working at rat holes like the Dept. of Education or Energy or the CIA and other organizations that Paul wanted to do away with- are white. I remember being at a Ron Paul rally and some white women tried to run some of us over, shouting obscenities from her car window. I figured she probably "worked" at the Dept. of Education or something)

    Look at why John McCain keeps getting elected as the Arizona Senator- because he promises to bring home more lucre / slop in the trough - as a senior Senator - to the venal, white Republican voters of Arizona.

    Lindsey Graham gets elected because the feckless imbeciles in South Carolina thinks this pole-smoking war pig is going to force the return of Jesus and give them their rapture- by augmenting the genocide of the Palestinians. I kid you not.

    we have much to lament from the ranks of our own, is all I'm saying. Sure, it's the Jews who've managed to wrest control of our civilization from us, and are using its institutions (and immigration and blacks, etc..) to destroy us, but all of that power was handed to them by Western ancestral leaders who borrowed shekels to kill rival monarchs in war after war. The Jews would have no power over us were it not for the eternal folly of our own leaders like Woodrow Wilson and FDR and Bush and Clinton and Trump and the sheople who follow them.


    You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don’t blame all whites.
     
    I certainly don't blame all whites Seamus, but if we're going to set our house in order, then we're going to have to look in a mirror. I've tried to act as a defender of the American people from time to time, as I don't consider the average middle or working class American as a vile war mongering menace to the rest of the planet, but then someone will point out the Republican voters of Arizona, and I'm left speechless. There's simply no defense of an American (or anyone else) that would pull the lever for a man like John McCain. imho
    , @Alden
    Liberals and commies can't do anything about the huge corporations that are destroying the earth and operating slave labor factories like Nike's hell holes in Indonesia.

    So they just constantly attack Whites like you and me because we are the only White people they can destroy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Anon
    Jews exploit black rage, but without blacks, Jews couldn't do much harm.

    But even if US had no Jews, blacks would be a big big problem.

    Also, for every Jewish shark or parasite who robs us(like Bernie Madoff), there are other Jews who really do contribute to wealth-creation and innovation. So, some Jews take, but other Jews add.
    But what do blacks add to the US? Rap thug culture? Who needs that?

    The Jews seem to have been able to f*ck over Europe pretty good even before the arrival of any darkies; although admittedly, mass immigration from culturally incompatible countries makes their work easier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Or, 27 million Soviet lives would not have been lost because the Germans were able to do so much damage so quickly.
     
    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.

    That's, I imagine, what played a major, major role in determining the outcome of that war. And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started - from scratch, from nothing - only 10-12 years before the war. And for these projects to materialize, for things to happen on that scale within that time-frame, it certainly did require some serious determination and some serious sacrifices.

    So, this is the context.

    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.

    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world (see the link in my other post). It naturally would have been able to produce many tanks in the 1940s.

    And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started – from scratch, from nothing – only 10-12 years before the war

    Had industrialization not been interrupted it would not have been necessary to start things from scratch.

    One thing, however, was that natural industrial growth would have probably been more centered on already-industrialized and less remote areas such as Donbas and Moscow, which would have been more strategically vulnerable. This, of course, would have been balanced by the fact that Russia would have had a few million more conscriptable young men, a larger buffer zone due to no territorial losses after World War I, a population whose soldiers were less likely to desert en masse in the first months of the war due to the hope they they were getting liberated from the Bolshevik nightmare, and likely a weaker Germany due to Russia having been able to get something out of Germany at Versailles.

    So overall, the hard truth is that the Bolshevik sacrifices were for nothing. The excuses are just a way of finding meaning in the senseless tragedy, a healthy way of approaching it, although not reality-based.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world
     
    Baloney, in my post above I presented a link to resources on that--not-communist but Russian (before Revolution) resources. Russia was losing out to leading industrial powers of a period and, while there are many strategic and operational excuses (some legitimate) for the loss of Russo-Japanese War, humiliation of Tsushima and, literally, selling of Port Arthur by Stessel were direct indicators of overall Russian backwardness even despite some strides made in industrialization. Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world
     
    Well, the rate of getting to 1 from 0 is infinity. It doesn't mean anything, however. Besides, by the 1930s the Tsar was already long gone, so this whole line is completely meaningless, on several counts.

    So overall, the hard truth is that the Bolshevik sacrifices were for nothing.
     
    I'm not sure what the phrase "Bolshevik sacrifices" means exactly, but I don't see anything in your comment to justify the conclusion that the industrialization of the 1930s (despite all its unfortunate side-effects) was 'for nothing'.

    Obviously you have the right to an opinion, but this particular opinion is rather outlandish... Perhaps you could try to argue that fast industrialization was indeed necessary but it could be achieved by less radical means? Without collectivization, without repressions? I would tend to disagree anyway, but it would be a more reasonable objection...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Lyttenburgh

    Because communism began among jews, is my idea.
     
    Not true. You are a liar, userperson "jilles dykstra".

    Only in 1939 Stalin fired his jewish foreign secretary, replaced him with Molotov, in order to strike a deal with Von Ribbentrop.
     
    The reasons for the dismissal of Litvinov has nothing to do with him being a Jew. He was too pro-British and his attempts to forge an alliance with the so-called "Western Democracies" failed.

    The reasons for the dismissal of Litvinov has nothing to do with him being a Jew. He was too pro-British and his attempts to forge an alliance with the so-called “Western Democracies” failed.

    It is true that Litvinov’s attempt at creating an alliance with the Britain and France had failed. But it is also true that the Germans would never have granted him a diplomatic visa because he was Jewish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @AP

    It was so “negligible” that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway.
     
    50,000 Czech POWS in a country of 170 million is not much. This indicates not a massive level of support for the Whites but the chaotic and collapsed state of the country, where small groups could accomplish a lot. The fact that the Bolsheviks couldn't handle 50,000 Czech POWs tells us that they weren't so strong at that time, either.

    Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement’s benefactors.
     
    Fragmentation was determined by geography; the Whites were largely cut off from each other. Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia's industrial base. Even though they had the support of perhaps 25% of the country these factors were enough to allow them to hijack it.

    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe.
     
    And it may be that if Russia joined the circle of victors:

    1. Germany would have been too crushed to present as much of a threat. It may had less territory and less population.

    2. Russia would of course have had more territory.

    I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia’s casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain.
     
    It might have imposed enough, to prevent Germany from being in a position to try to conquer Europe.

    But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke.
     
    Even with the 1929 Depression Hitler barely seized power, with the threat of Bolshevism while not the main factor, being enough to give him the edge. That is rather clear.

    A non-Nazi reactionary German government was possible. It probably wouldn't have been genocidal.

    50,000 Czech POWS in a country of 170 million is not much

    You know, I am always amused by people drawing direct linear connection between population size and some number taken completely out of the context. I wrote about a corps of Czechs which was one of many military contingents in Russia, others were 70 000 Japanese, 12 000 Americans, thousands of British. Obviously we discount 20000+ Greeks, then tens of thousands of other foreign powers who were directly involved into occupation and combat in Russia on the side of Whites and, guess what, this “number” in the “country of 170 million” suddenly grows to hundreds of thousands. But sure, let’s throw these numbers away because we don’t like Bolsheviks. I also do not necessarily like Bolsheviks but to completely ignore “into your face” a massive political, military and cultural fact of occupation–nah, let’s throw this away. Surely, George F. Kennan was pursuing his own interests when dedicated the whole seminal work “Russia Leaves The War” to exactly this thing.

    https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Leaves-War-Soviet-American-Relations/dp/0691008418

    I have an original edition of this book.

    and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base

    Ah, really? So since when Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Kharkov, Yekaterinburg , Rostov, even Baku stopped being “industrial base” in Russian Empire? Sure, you should be aware of Samara being called Russian Chicago way before Revolution? I guess, for “scholars” of Solzhenitsified version of Civil War all those basic facts are not important but Bosheviks, see below

    Even though they had the support of perhaps 25% of the country these factors were enough to allow them to hijack it.

    Far from “hijacking” the country merely picked a political power from the ground where it was laying because nobody wanted it. Guess from three times whom I just quoted? Guessed? Well, I quoted Solzhenitsyn from “Russian Question In The End of 20th Century” –even this hack had to admit that.

    Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base.

    Apart from obvious mis-argumentation about “industrial base” you point is exactly what is this whole discussion about–you just listed qualities which separate great armies from merely good ones. Great strategies from mediocre ones. I also have a huge doubt about “25%”.

    A non-Nazi reactionary German government was possible. It probably wouldn’t have been genocidal.

    Not under conditions of 1929 and economic catastrophe it brought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You know, I am always amused by people drawing direct linear connection between population size and some number taken completely out of the context. I wrote about a corps of Czechs which was one of many military contingents in Russia, others were 70 000 Japanese, 12 000 Americans, thousands of British.
     
    And how active of a role did these others play? The French controlled Odessa but as a soon as a hostile force appeared they left without fighting. In contrast, Latvians were the ones without whom the Bolsheviks would have lost Moscow and probably power altogether (I realize Latvia had been part of the Russian Empire).

    "and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base"

    Ah, really? So since when Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Kharkov, Yekaterinburg , Rostov, even Baku stopped being “industrial base” in Russian Empire?
     

    I wrote, "most." In 1913 Samara had 144,000 people, Rostov 172,000 people, Yekaterinburg 70,000 people.

    St. Petersburg had 2.1 million people, Moscow about 1.7 million people. Bolsheviks also controlled Saratov early on - with over 200,000 people it was bigger than any of the Russian cities you listed that were outside their control.

    So yes, Bolsheviks controlled most of Russia's industry, and they held it in a compact territory.


    "Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base. "

    Apart from obvious mis-argumentation about “industrial base” you point is exactly what is this whole discussion about–you just listed qualities which separate great armies from merely good ones.
     

    For example, Bolsheviks were thinking "outside the box" by holding officers' families hostage and murdering them, if officers didn't fight for them. They engaged in unprecedented mass slaughter of opponents, such as gassing peasant-rebels in Siberia. Cheka blew the old okhrana out of the water in terms of sheer brutality. This is "great" in the way that ISIS behavior is "great." But it was effective in terms of hijacking the country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    The Russian revolution was in early 1917, what Lenin with his bolsjewists did in november 1917 was a coup, destroying Russian democracy, until 1990 or so.

    Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), ‘The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)’, New York 1955

    Hellmut Andics, ‘Rule of terror, Russia under Lenin and Stalin’, New York, 1969 (Vienna, 1967)

    Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘Lenin’, 1998, 2001, New York

    Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’, 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
    This book exposes Wall Street support for Lenin, in order to prevent German economic relations with the USSR.

    The so-called ‘Russian revolution of March 1917′ was a kind of anticipation of ‘colored revolutions’. The bourgeoisie and the office of Russia deposed the Tsar in the hope of obtaining American funding to carry on the war. The Russian Provisional Government was a fragile and inept arrangement, which could not last long.
    Even if the war were to end in the summer of 1917, the inept provisional government would still be deposed, even if not by the Bolsheviks, and Russia would live a bloody dictatorship led by Kornilov, Kolchak, or Denikin.
    The Bolsheviks did not seize power in March because their top leaders were in exile.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @AP

    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.
     
    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world (see the link in my other post). It naturally would have been able to produce many tanks in the 1940s.

    And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started – from scratch, from nothing – only 10-12 years before the war
     
    Had industrialization not been interrupted it would not have been necessary to start things from scratch.

    One thing, however, was that natural industrial growth would have probably been more centered on already-industrialized and less remote areas such as Donbas and Moscow, which would have been more strategically vulnerable. This, of course, would have been balanced by the fact that Russia would have had a few million more conscriptable young men, a larger buffer zone due to no territorial losses after World War I, a population whose soldiers were less likely to desert en masse in the first months of the war due to the hope they they were getting liberated from the Bolshevik nightmare, and likely a weaker Germany due to Russia having been able to get something out of Germany at Versailles.

    So overall, the hard truth is that the Bolshevik sacrifices were for nothing. The excuses are just a way of finding meaning in the senseless tragedy, a healthy way of approaching it, although not reality-based.

    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world

    Baloney, in my post above I presented a link to resources on that–not-communist but Russian (before Revolution) resources. Russia was losing out to leading industrial powers of a period and, while there are many strategic and operational excuses (some legitimate) for the loss of Russo-Japanese War, humiliation of Tsushima and, literally, selling of Port Arthur by Stessel were direct indicators of overall Russian backwardness even despite some strides made in industrialization. Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Baloney, in my post above I presented a link to resources on that–not-communist but Russian (before Revolution) resources.
     
    The link you posted, written by some weirdo Marxist-Leninist ideologue, included only a snapshot of Russia in 1910-1913 showing that Russia had already in some measures (such as steel production) surpassed France, while conveniently ignoring the dramatic progress Russia had made in order to get to that point.

    Russia was losing out to leading industrial powers of a period
     
    The link you posted to made sure to describe this "losing out" as occurring in per capita terms. That's because Russia had the highest fertility rate in the world (7.5 in 1900). Its dramatic population growth - a good thing - outpaced even its dramatic industrial growth.

    while there are many strategic and operational excuses (some legitimate) for the loss of Russo-Japanese War, humiliation of Tsushima and, literally, selling of Port Arthur by Stessel were direct indicators of overall Russian backwardness even despite some strides made in industrialization. Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period.
     
    This is very true. Russia was undergoing rapid industrialization and modernization in the last decades of the Tsarist system. In 1905 it lost to Japan. In 1914 it defeated the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Przemsysl was A-H's Verdun - Russia won) and the Ottoman Empire, grabbing about 10% of the latter's territory (compare to British performance against that same empire at Gallipoli). Russia lost some territory (no more significant than the Western Allies' loss of Belgium and northern France) to the Germans but was able to maintain a stable front.

    Nicky was stupid to get Russia into the war so soon. How would Russia have performed in 1925? In 1935? With another 10 or 20 years of industrialization and massive population growth?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @AP

    It was so “negligible” that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway.
     
    50,000 Czech POWS in a country of 170 million is not much. This indicates not a massive level of support for the Whites but the chaotic and collapsed state of the country, where small groups could accomplish a lot. The fact that the Bolsheviks couldn't handle 50,000 Czech POWs tells us that they weren't so strong at that time, either.

    Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement’s benefactors.
     
    Fragmentation was determined by geography; the Whites were largely cut off from each other. Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia's industrial base. Even though they had the support of perhaps 25% of the country these factors were enough to allow them to hijack it.

    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe.
     
    And it may be that if Russia joined the circle of victors:

    1. Germany would have been too crushed to present as much of a threat. It may had less territory and less population.

    2. Russia would of course have had more territory.

    I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia’s casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain.
     
    It might have imposed enough, to prevent Germany from being in a position to try to conquer Europe.

    But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke.
     
    Even with the 1929 Depression Hitler barely seized power, with the threat of Bolshevism while not the main factor, being enough to give him the edge. That is rather clear.

    A non-Nazi reactionary German government was possible. It probably wouldn't have been genocidal.

    An unlikely scenario, for the head of the provisional government, Alexander Kerensky, was in favor of a peace without annexations or reparations. Unless one imagines the even more implausible scenario in which the White Army was able to defeat the Bolsheviks until 1918, it still beat the Germans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. schmenz says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    If you disagree with Alden’s comment kindly provide a helpful counter-argument. “lol” is not an argument.
     
    Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned 'lol' is the only reasonable reaction to "...murdered 200 million of their own citizens".

    And if you disagree with my comment, go ahead and provide a 'helpful counter-argument', if you care.

    I see that I am not going to get a reasonable, factual, coherent response. Well, I tried.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @AP

    According to this page, the USSR produced 106,025 tanks during WWII, vs 67,429 produced by Germany. More military aircraft as well.
     
    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world (see the link in my other post). It naturally would have been able to produce many tanks in the 1940s.

    And that was made possible by Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and other tremendous projects that started – from scratch, from nothing – only 10-12 years before the war
     
    Had industrialization not been interrupted it would not have been necessary to start things from scratch.

    One thing, however, was that natural industrial growth would have probably been more centered on already-industrialized and less remote areas such as Donbas and Moscow, which would have been more strategically vulnerable. This, of course, would have been balanced by the fact that Russia would have had a few million more conscriptable young men, a larger buffer zone due to no territorial losses after World War I, a population whose soldiers were less likely to desert en masse in the first months of the war due to the hope they they were getting liberated from the Bolshevik nightmare, and likely a weaker Germany due to Russia having been able to get something out of Germany at Versailles.

    So overall, the hard truth is that the Bolshevik sacrifices were for nothing. The excuses are just a way of finding meaning in the senseless tragedy, a healthy way of approaching it, although not reality-based.

    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world

    Well, the rate of getting to 1 from 0 is infinity. It doesn’t mean anything, however. Besides, by the 1930s the Tsar was already long gone, so this whole line is completely meaningless, on several counts.

    So overall, the hard truth is that the Bolshevik sacrifices were for nothing.

    I’m not sure what the phrase “Bolshevik sacrifices” means exactly, but I don’t see anything in your comment to justify the conclusion that the industrialization of the 1930s (despite all its unfortunate side-effects) was ‘for nothing’.

    Obviously you have the right to an opinion, but this particular opinion is rather outlandish… Perhaps you could try to argue that fast industrialization was indeed necessary but it could be achieved by less radical means? Without collectivization, without repressions? I would tend to disagree anyway, but it would be a more reasonable objection…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Trying again, as my last post disappeared.

    Well, the rate of getting to 1 from 0 is infinity.
     
    Russia did not get to 1 from 0, it got to France from 0. France was a great power. That is a lot fo progress.

    Martyanov wrote a true statement - "Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period."

    In 1905 Russia was defeated by Japan.

    Ten years later, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers - Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, and held its ground against the third. Russia did much better against the Ottomans than did the British.

    Do you assume that Russia would have stopped growing in power in 1915 had the Bolsheviks not taken over?

    I’m not sure what the phrase “Bolshevik sacrifices” means exactly, but I don’t see anything in your comment to justify the conclusion that the industrialization of the 1930s (despite all its unfortunate side-effects) was ‘for nothing’.
     
    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks. It didn't need Bolshevism to do these things. Bolshevism added millions of lost lives (and tens of millions of lost population, when one factors in the millions of children and grandchildren those people didn't have) and lost territory. These sacrifice were for nothing, because they didn't provide anything that wouldn't have happened anyways, but at a terrible cost that was unnecessary.

    Claiming that the senseless tragedy of Bolshevik rule "got us modernizned" is a false way of giving meaning to the unnecessary suffering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Che Guava says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " I am also missing the Cold War, it truly did make western and Asian non-communist govts treat people better. "
    Missing the point, after WWII most countries were miserable, ready for communism.
    Prior tot the Italian elections of, I think, 1947, the USA fleet was ready for the Italian coast, tanks already were put ashore, so feared was a communist victory.
    Then the filantropic USA began, three years after it should have begun.

    Yes, so many situations like that in Europe, Greece as one. Thank you, I had not read of that one in Italy.

    In Japan, only the good students know that the first elected post-war govt. was socialist. The habitual ruling party likes to imply that they were the first.

    The US occupation (which remains) was still in full force at the time, so they permitted the bureaucracy to disobey and subvert the elected govt., which of course, fell as a result.

    The mixed bag of war criminals etc. that came to power at the next election was more to US tastes, so they have (almost) always been the govt. since then.

    The other big emergency concerned the US-Japan security treaty, the movement against it was massive and popular, it almost brought the govt. down. That was in the very early sixties.

    The later and more famous student revolts of the late sixties to early seventies seem to have been a plot of the internal security and the CIA. All of these tiny, mainly Trot groups, more intent on fighting each other than anything else. Some mutated into terrorist groups, on the German and Italian patterns. Some still appear on police ‘wanted’ posters.

    A few still launched minor attacks on US bases, as late as the early 2000′s.

    I have a friend who says that the Aum Shinrikkyou was, at least in part, a creation of internal security, with the aim of discrediting radical groups in general.

    His hypothesis is convincing to me. Everyone in the west who reads knows about the Tokyo subway sarin attacks.

    Few know that in the regional city. Matsumoto, months earlier, Aum agents had driven through, dispensing sarin.

    Many were poisoned. I once met a young man there, whose heart I hate, who was pleased because one of his teachers was among the victims.

    There were no arrests. leaving the gate open for the later Tokyo subway attack.

    Very strange. It makes me believe that my friend’s theory is very likely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Lyttenburgh

    If my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, then by 1917, with the population of around 160+ millions, Russia’s actual “proletariat”, that is people involved in actual industrial production at factories was something on the order of 1.4-1.5 million, that is less than 1% of Russia’s population–a telling number, really.
     
    More than that, actually. 3,7% as for 1897. Probably 5_% as for 1917

    Putin today is facing a similar, albeit much much less (on several orders of magnitude) aggravated problem (and all that thanks to the heritage of those very Stalinists)
     
    That's why the West hates us. That's why they really hate Stalin - due to nukes.

    More than that, actually. 3,7% as for 1897. Probably 5_% as for 1917

    Possibly, I took the number from the top of my head. Still, the number was very small.

    That’s why the West hates us. That’s why they really hate Stalin – due to nukes.

    Not only, most Western high school students would have had huge difficulties surviving an average Soviet public school curriculum in STEM. Admiral Rickover, not without justification, stated that Soviet public education (schools) was clear and present danger to US national security. Obviously, rebuilding the country from utter destruction after WW II completely out of own resources etc. A lot of things are hated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Albertde says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    People would line up to get items like shoes from Rumania
     
    Don't lie, you anti-Sovetchik, people would never line up for shoes from Romania. Shoes form Austria-well, that is another story altogether;-))) LOL. Now, without jokes, you are both correct and wrong. It is impossible to reduce such a complex country as USSR to some memes. If you were there in 1972 then you should know that it was merely 27 years after the war which devastated Russia's European part almost completely. FYI, FRG (West Germany) closed her last post-WW II restoration, IIRC, in...1989. Now, let's go from 1972 to 2014, boy, were Communists right about West--ask present day Russians will they give up some comforts and even, oh goody, access to some shoes in favor of reliable defense? I think you know the answer. Now go back to 1972 and ask yourself a question (whoever you are by nationality) how would your people feel if they would have been removed less than one generation from losing 27 million people in the most devastating war in history and then had restore their whole country literally from rubble, while being threatened with nuclear war? Yes, such conditions do not include consumer goods paradise, tanks and missiles seemed more important.

    I am not denigrating the Soviet Union. I realize that there was devastation from WWII. In fact, at one of the campsites in Oryol, we sat down with some student volunteers and watched a film about WWII and how the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting. My point was that, regardless of the reason, the country was not at the level of a Western European country economically.

    Undoubtedly, with respect to education, the Soviet and Communist system in general was and Russia still is in the forefront. This is something irrational Fahrenheit land with its quaint measuring system doesn’t understand. I guess education below the university level is not important when you can seduce/steal the world’s brains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I am not denigrating the Soviet Union.
     
    I know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Rurik says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors? You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don't blame all whites.

    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors?

    yes, Ron Paul was just such a choice. Sure, they cheated him and used every underhanded device to destroy his candidacy, but I remember being appalled at how few people (white or otherwise) had any interest in his message. I was one of the enthusiasts, but few people (white or otherwise) I knew were on board- (in spite of my best efforts, although I’m sure I did convince a few to take a second look). For the gals, he was too old and thin and whiney sounding. For a lot of (white) men I knew/know, he just didn’t resonate with their agendas. White liberals called him a ‘white supremacist’, because he supported borders and the Constitution, and presumably equal treatment- which mean no more Affirmative Action. Conservatives and Christians didn’t seem to like him because he wasn’t rabidly against abortion or speaking of Jesus or ‘Israel’ like Dubya did. It was all about their narrow agendas, and ‘what good is he going to do for me personally’?

    (most of the people working at rat holes like the Dept. of Education or Energy or the CIA and other organizations that Paul wanted to do away with- are white. I remember being at a Ron Paul rally and some white women tried to run some of us over, shouting obscenities from her car window. I figured she probably “worked” at the Dept. of Education or something)

    Look at why John McCain keeps getting elected as the Arizona Senator- because he promises to bring home more lucre / slop in the trough – as a senior Senator – to the venal, white Republican voters of Arizona.

    Lindsey Graham gets elected because the feckless imbeciles in South Carolina thinks this pole-smoking war pig is going to force the return of Jesus and give them their rapture- by augmenting the genocide of the Palestinians. I kid you not.

    we have much to lament from the ranks of our own, is all I’m saying. Sure, it’s the Jews who’ve managed to wrest control of our civilization from us, and are using its institutions (and immigration and blacks, etc..) to destroy us, but all of that power was handed to them by Western ancestral leaders who borrowed shekels to kill rival monarchs in war after war. The Jews would have no power over us were it not for the eternal folly of our own leaders like Woodrow Wilson and FDR and Bush and Clinton and Trump and the sheople who follow them.

    You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don’t blame all whites.

    I certainly don’t blame all whites Seamus, but if we’re going to set our house in order, then we’re going to have to look in a mirror. I’ve tried to act as a defender of the American people from time to time, as I don’t consider the average middle or working class American as a vile war mongering menace to the rest of the planet, but then someone will point out the Republican voters of Arizona, and I’m left speechless. There’s simply no defense of an American (or anyone else) that would pull the lever for a man like John McCain. imho

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    I respect Ron Paul. Even though I'm not a libertarian, I would have voted for him because of his views on foreign policy and constitutional rights.
    , @geokat62

    but then someone will point out the Republican voters of Arizona, and I’m left speechless.
     
    PTI, but I just can't imagine you ever becoming speechless, Rurik.

    All joking aside, I'm glad to see your thinking has evolved somewhat on this topic. Here's a previous exchange of ours:

    geokat62 – Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons’ preferred candidate?

    Rurik – because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for ‘Israel’ and make lurid promises of everlasting ‘rapture’.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Gentlemen, your very interesting and knowledgeable discussion mainly deals with Russia’s communist past. Please pay attention to the point of my article. We live now in the middle of neo-liberal remake of the world, and that has to be stopped, in my view. Not only in Russia, but in the US and Europe, too. We hoped that it can be achieved by alt-right. Now we see it does not happen. Nice billionaires are not going to save us. That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin – in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. I am not going to weep if Mr Soros and his friends hedge-fund-managers will meet a hard fate in a new Cheka.
    Russia’s communists had to deal with their problems in a retarded and devastated Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states – because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.
    We have to save the world, for us and for our children – not only save Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Even Jesus, his father Jehovah, Buddha,
    Confucius.Allah and the rest of the prophets and Gods couldn't save mankind and you think another Lenin will succeed?
    , @utu
    That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin – in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. (Israel Shamir, May 4, 2017)
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Israel, read Lenin. It is all there. You probably meant also another Lenin, not Stalin as it was Iliich who led Bolsheviks towards victory and even then he only could do it when conditions were right. Party and the whole structure must be in place to capitalize on such opportunity. Looking for similarminded, young, bright. Eager for justice and fairness, unburdened by kids and families and ready to risk their well being and possibly life is a good start. Locals are content to just vent their anger
    , @Rurik

    That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin – in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way.
     
    I suspect that there are many who pine for a return of that strongman from the 1930s to deal with today's threats and quandaries, just not sure it's Stalin

    (knowing what I know about Stalin [and the other guy], I suspect Mr. Shamir is just yanking our chains here. ; )
    , @OilcanFloyd
    I doubt that academic discussions about the past will solve future or present problems, and are likely often made to muddy the waters and distract. I'm not an academic, and I'm not any sort of intellectual, but I have enough background knowledge to follow the conversation, and feel pretty certain that much of it is useless to the present or future.

    Americans don't have a history of Stalins or Hitlers. It's foreign to us. The problem in America could be that the current immigrants, and some Americans who are descended from immigrants, have experience with totalitarianism, or still cling to a totalitarian or radical tendency. Maybe a violent, authoritarian, pro-American strongman would solve many of our problems, but I don't see Americans going for him, or producing him.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin
     
    For that you must first get a new Lenin. And new Revolution to boot.

    Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states – because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.
     
    Such naivety! No, precisely because they are so "advanced" you will be in need of new ChKa more than ever. Do you really think that they will gladly agree to surrender their power, that they truly respect the law and hold it sacred, or that the security apparatus won't protect them and instead joyously join ranks with the masses?

    How can you bring said revolution in the so-called West, when the people there lack class consciousness and refuse to believe that you can/must develop it, and who subscribe wholeheartedly to the idea that, no, there is no such a thing as the "class struggle"?

    In order for Revolution to begin in the USA one thing must be done - the idea of the so-called "American Dream" must be exposed as a fraud and a lie. Now, only after that, there will be enough anger and disappointment to shake the people up and try to make them see the things as they are. If not accomplished, you'd get a bunch of new Heemeyers going postal with no lasting effect whatsoever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Russia in 1960s was a veritable paradise. I remember as I grew there – it was a country of equality, of great future, of good schools, of strong spirit of solidarity. You didn’t even need money – life was very easy. Actually, then life was easy in Western Europe, too – but it was harder than in Russia. I know that from my own first-hand experience. Pity afterwards things went downhill. I connect it with the failed 1968 revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    America in the 1960s was also a paradise compared to what it is today. For example, my home state California public school system always scored in the top ten of schools in the country.
    But now, due to the fact that the cut throat capitalists have replaced the White workers with primitive functionally retarded Hispanic Indians California schools rank 48 or 49 out of 50 because most of the kids are functionally regarded primitive Indian Hispanics

    BTW, did your Mom have to do the laundry by hand in the communal bathtub?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The Russian revolution was in early 1917, what Lenin with his bolsjewists did in november 1917 was a coup, destroying Russian democracy, until 1990 or so.

    Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), ‘The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)’, New York 1955

    Hellmut Andics, ‘Rule of terror, Russia under Lenin and Stalin’, New York, 1969 (Vienna, 1967)

    Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘Lenin’, 1998, 2001, New York

    Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’, 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
    This book exposes Wall Street support for Lenin, in order to prevent German economic relations with the USSR.

    Of course, there were 2 revolutions, one in February and the one in October. The October one was O Holy Night, that glorious night, the night mankind was saved from itself, when Lenin and his well paid mob took over the Duma. I guess you assume you are the only person who knows that.

    AND another thing I hate about commies liberals and Jews is the way they assume that they are the only ones who know anything. The 2 revolutions are explained in every book ever written about the Russisn revolution.

    And you even put in links in case us dumb ignorant deplorable proles wanted proof of something we learned in freshman year of high school social studies aka world history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I'm not the only one who knows, because I have it from books.
    Your assertion that anyone in high school is taught this, highly improbable for me.
    Here in Europe only the november 1917 revolution is ever mentioned.
    Except in books I mentioned, how many people read books these days, I wonder.
    USA citizens I met personally did not seem to know very much.
    I gave one of them Anne Applebaum, ‘Between East and West, Across the borderlands of Europe’, Londen, 1995, he read it, and told me he had no idea that so many peoples existed.
    USA troops reaching NE France at the end of 1944 were amazed that German speaking French did exist.
    In the USA deep interior in a small restaurant they asked me where I came from, Netherlands, Holland, did not seem to ring a bell, it was the only time in my life I added 'Europe'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Alden says:
    @Israel Shamir
    Gentlemen, your very interesting and knowledgeable discussion mainly deals with Russia's communist past. Please pay attention to the point of my article. We live now in the middle of neo-liberal remake of the world, and that has to be stopped, in my view. Not only in Russia, but in the US and Europe, too. We hoped that it can be achieved by alt-right. Now we see it does not happen. Nice billionaires are not going to save us. That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin - in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. I am not going to weep if Mr Soros and his friends hedge-fund-managers will meet a hard fate in a new Cheka.
    Russia's communists had to deal with their problems in a retarded and devastated Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states - because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.
    We have to save the world, for us and for our children - not only save Russia.

    Even Jesus, his father Jehovah, Buddha,
    Confucius.Allah and the rest of the prophets and Gods couldn’t save mankind and you think another Lenin will succeed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world
     
    Baloney, in my post above I presented a link to resources on that--not-communist but Russian (before Revolution) resources. Russia was losing out to leading industrial powers of a period and, while there are many strategic and operational excuses (some legitimate) for the loss of Russo-Japanese War, humiliation of Tsushima and, literally, selling of Port Arthur by Stessel were direct indicators of overall Russian backwardness even despite some strides made in industrialization. Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period.

    Baloney, in my post above I presented a link to resources on that–not-communist but Russian (before Revolution) resources.

    The link you posted, written by some weirdo Marxist-Leninist ideologue, included only a snapshot of Russia in 1910-1913 showing that Russia had already in some measures (such as steel production) surpassed France, while conveniently ignoring the dramatic progress Russia had made in order to get to that point.

    Russia was losing out to leading industrial powers of a period

    The link you posted to made sure to describe this “losing out” as occurring in per capita terms. That’s because Russia had the highest fertility rate in the world (7.5 in 1900). Its dramatic population growth – a good thing – outpaced even its dramatic industrial growth.

    while there are many strategic and operational excuses (some legitimate) for the loss of Russo-Japanese War, humiliation of Tsushima and, literally, selling of Port Arthur by Stessel were direct indicators of overall Russian backwardness even despite some strides made in industrialization. Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period.

    This is very true. Russia was undergoing rapid industrialization and modernization in the last decades of the Tsarist system. In 1905 it lost to Japan. In 1914 it defeated the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Przemsysl was A-H’s Verdun – Russia won) and the Ottoman Empire, grabbing about 10% of the latter’s territory (compare to British performance against that same empire at Gallipoli). Russia lost some territory (no more significant than the Western Allies’ loss of Belgium and northern France) to the Germans but was able to maintain a stable front.

    Nicky was stupid to get Russia into the war so soon. How would Russia have performed in 1925? In 1935? With another 10 or 20 years of industrialization and massive population growth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The link you posted to made sure to describe this “losing out” as occurring in per capita terms.
     
    The link I posted refers to the works of NON-communist Russian sociologists, doctors etc. precisely at the point of time which universally considered the zenith of Czarist Russia development. Like this:

    http://arctus.livejournal.com/105152.html

    Is this: Статистический ежегодник на 1914 год. Под ред. В. И. Шараго. СПб., 1914. С.817. also "Marxist-Leninist propaganda"? Is Russia's humiliation, and as a consequence first revolution, in Russo-Japanese War an indicator of the great state of Russia in 1904? Is the fact that Russian Army in Crimea in 1854-55 fought with smooth-bore guns against fully rifled French-British expeditionary force an indicator of a great development? Why don't you try to check out of library Milyukov's Russia And Its Crisis? OK, here is a free version for you:

    https://www.questia.com/read/1662220/russia-and-its-crisis

    Is Pavel Milyukov a Marxist-Leninist, while simultaneously being a Cadet? Nobody denies Russia's achievements in pre-Revolutionary period but it is impossible to close eyes to a huge bulk of problems which existed in Russia prior to WW I . It is becoming nauseating by now to hear (and listen) to the same Marxist-Leninist ideological "argument" against those who methodically present viable facts, numbers and ideas about those times, while not being Marxist-Leninists in any capacity. But in the end, no matter how long we are going to be talking about THAT Russia, from art, to economics to wars we will return time after time to the main Russian question of 18-19th centuries--the question of peasantry.

    Bertrand Russel, while speaking to Lady Adaline, noted that if to consider Russia being populated by characters such as described in Dostoevsky's novels, it might seem that Bolsheviks seem to be a reasonable government for such people. While grossly exaggerated by Russel (hardly a Russophile himself) there is a rational thought in it. In the end, these were Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists, whatever one calls them, who did modernize Russia--a feat of a no small scale. Even Peter The Great, hardly a humanitarian, failed to go all the way.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. druid says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    And your heroes murdered 200 million of their own citizens Mr Shamir.
     
    Lol. Anti-communism really is a mind disease.

    20 million!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. druid says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Pretty much everything you say here is true, except:

    Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.
     
    The blacks are a problem, but they're not the main problem. No, not by a long shot. The main problem in this country would be the Jews. You can avoid pretty much avoid all the problems caused by blacks simply by not living near them. But no matter where you live, you are never really safe from the power of the Jews . Hell, even BLM itself is underwritten by Soros!

    I totally agree with you.
    I wish this site would let us agree repeatedly without having to comment our agreement!
    Don’t get it!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. utu says:
    @Israel Shamir
    Gentlemen, your very interesting and knowledgeable discussion mainly deals with Russia's communist past. Please pay attention to the point of my article. We live now in the middle of neo-liberal remake of the world, and that has to be stopped, in my view. Not only in Russia, but in the US and Europe, too. We hoped that it can be achieved by alt-right. Now we see it does not happen. Nice billionaires are not going to save us. That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin - in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. I am not going to weep if Mr Soros and his friends hedge-fund-managers will meet a hard fate in a new Cheka.
    Russia's communists had to deal with their problems in a retarded and devastated Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states - because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.
    We have to save the world, for us and for our children - not only save Russia.

    That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin – in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. (Israel Shamir, May 4, 2017)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. druid says:
    @Anon
    Jews exploit black rage, but without blacks, Jews couldn't do much harm.

    But even if US had no Jews, blacks would be a big big problem.

    Also, for every Jewish shark or parasite who robs us(like Bernie Madoff), there are other Jews who really do contribute to wealth-creation and innovation. So, some Jews take, but other Jews add.
    But what do blacks add to the US? Rap thug culture? Who needs that?

    The ones who take take a lot and then use that loot to manipulate, control, bully and take more. And don’t forget the support and manipulation on behalf of an apartheid fascistic state!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Russia under the Tsars managed the highest industrialization rate in the world
     
    Well, the rate of getting to 1 from 0 is infinity. It doesn't mean anything, however. Besides, by the 1930s the Tsar was already long gone, so this whole line is completely meaningless, on several counts.

    So overall, the hard truth is that the Bolshevik sacrifices were for nothing.
     
    I'm not sure what the phrase "Bolshevik sacrifices" means exactly, but I don't see anything in your comment to justify the conclusion that the industrialization of the 1930s (despite all its unfortunate side-effects) was 'for nothing'.

    Obviously you have the right to an opinion, but this particular opinion is rather outlandish... Perhaps you could try to argue that fast industrialization was indeed necessary but it could be achieved by less radical means? Without collectivization, without repressions? I would tend to disagree anyway, but it would be a more reasonable objection...

    Trying again, as my last post disappeared.

    Well, the rate of getting to 1 from 0 is infinity.

    Russia did not get to 1 from 0, it got to France from 0. France was a great power. That is a lot fo progress.

    Martyanov wrote a true statement – “Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period.”

    In 1905 Russia was defeated by Japan.

    Ten years later, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers – Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, and held its ground against the third. Russia did much better against the Ottomans than did the British.

    Do you assume that Russia would have stopped growing in power in 1915 had the Bolsheviks not taken over?

    I’m not sure what the phrase “Bolshevik sacrifices” means exactly, but I don’t see anything in your comment to justify the conclusion that the industrialization of the 1930s (despite all its unfortunate side-effects) was ‘for nothing’.

    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks. It didn’t need Bolshevism to do these things. Bolshevism added millions of lost lives (and tens of millions of lost population, when one factors in the millions of children and grandchildren those people didn’t have) and lost territory. These sacrifice were for nothing, because they didn’t provide anything that wouldn’t have happened anyways, but at a terrible cost that was unnecessary.

    Claiming that the senseless tragedy of Bolshevik rule “got us modernizned” is a false way of giving meaning to the unnecessary suffering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks.
     
    It was a quintessential backwater society. Till the 1930s, most of the population didn't even wear shoes, concocting their own primitive footwear from bark. They didn't know hours and minutes. And no, not knowing about hours is not the same as not believing in space travels.

    It didn’t need Bolshevism to do these things.
     
    Your opinion noted, but the fact is: it got involved in a war it couldn't manage, and after a series of crises it got Bolshevism.

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population, won the civil war, established new borders and control over the territory within these borders. It then introduced NEP, a version of state-controlled capitalism.

    At that point it continued industrializing (GOELRO), but nowhere as vigorous as what happened later, in the 1930s, when the leadership rejected both the right-wing pro-market strategy and the left-wing-globalist strategy.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.

    So, my thesis is that, in view of the geopolitical situation, it was a reasonable national strategy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Albertde
    I am not denigrating the Soviet Union. I realize that there was devastation from WWII. In fact, at one of the campsites in Oryol, we sat down with some student volunteers and watched a film about WWII and how the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting. My point was that, regardless of the reason, the country was not at the level of a Western European country economically.

    Undoubtedly, with respect to education, the Soviet and Communist system in general was and Russia still is in the forefront. This is something irrational Fahrenheit land with its quaint measuring system doesn't understand. I guess education below the university level is not important when you can seduce/steal the world's brains.

    I am not denigrating the Soviet Union.

    I know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    50,000 Czech POWS in a country of 170 million is not much
     
    You know, I am always amused by people drawing direct linear connection between population size and some number taken completely out of the context. I wrote about a corps of Czechs which was one of many military contingents in Russia, others were 70 000 Japanese, 12 000 Americans, thousands of British. Obviously we discount 20000+ Greeks, then tens of thousands of other foreign powers who were directly involved into occupation and combat in Russia on the side of Whites and, guess what, this "number" in the "country of 170 million" suddenly grows to hundreds of thousands. But sure, let's throw these numbers away because we don't like Bolsheviks. I also do not necessarily like Bolsheviks but to completely ignore "into your face" a massive political, military and cultural fact of occupation--nah, let's throw this away. Surely, George F. Kennan was pursuing his own interests when dedicated the whole seminal work "Russia Leaves The War" to exactly this thing.

    https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Leaves-War-Soviet-American-Relations/dp/0691008418

    I have an original edition of this book.

    and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base
     
    Ah, really? So since when Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Kharkov, Yekaterinburg , Rostov, even Baku stopped being "industrial base" in Russian Empire? Sure, you should be aware of Samara being called Russian Chicago way before Revolution? I guess, for "scholars" of Solzhenitsified version of Civil War all those basic facts are not important but Bosheviks, see below

    Even though they had the support of perhaps 25% of the country these factors were enough to allow them to hijack it.
     
    Far from "hijacking" the country merely picked a political power from the ground where it was laying because nobody wanted it. Guess from three times whom I just quoted? Guessed? Well, I quoted Solzhenitsyn from "Russian Question In The End of 20th Century" --even this hack had to admit that.

    Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base.
     
    Apart from obvious mis-argumentation about "industrial base" you point is exactly what is this whole discussion about--you just listed qualities which separate great armies from merely good ones. Great strategies from mediocre ones. I also have a huge doubt about "25%".

    A non-Nazi reactionary German government was possible. It probably wouldn’t have been genocidal.
     
    Not under conditions of 1929 and economic catastrophe it brought.

    You know, I am always amused by people drawing direct linear connection between population size and some number taken completely out of the context. I wrote about a corps of Czechs which was one of many military contingents in Russia, others were 70 000 Japanese, 12 000 Americans, thousands of British.

    And how active of a role did these others play? The French controlled Odessa but as a soon as a hostile force appeared they left without fighting. In contrast, Latvians were the ones without whom the Bolsheviks would have lost Moscow and probably power altogether (I realize Latvia had been part of the Russian Empire).

    “and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base”

    Ah, really? So since when Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Kharkov, Yekaterinburg , Rostov, even Baku stopped being “industrial base” in Russian Empire?

    I wrote, “most.” In 1913 Samara had 144,000 people, Rostov 172,000 people, Yekaterinburg 70,000 people.

    St. Petersburg had 2.1 million people, Moscow about 1.7 million people. Bolsheviks also controlled Saratov early on – with over 200,000 people it was bigger than any of the Russian cities you listed that were outside their control.

    So yes, Bolsheviks controlled most of Russia’s industry, and they held it in a compact territory.

    “Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base. ”

    Apart from obvious mis-argumentation about “industrial base” you point is exactly what is this whole discussion about–you just listed qualities which separate great armies from merely good ones.

    For example, Bolsheviks were thinking “outside the box” by holding officers’ families hostage and murdering them, if officers didn’t fight for them. They engaged in unprecedented mass slaughter of opponents, such as gassing peasant-rebels in Siberia. Cheka blew the old okhrana out of the water in terms of sheer brutality. This is “great” in the way that ISIS behavior is “great.” But it was effective in terms of hijacking the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I wrote, “most.” In 1913 Samara had 144,000 people, Rostov 172,000 people, Yekaterinburg 70,000 people.

    St. Petersburg had 2.1 million people, Moscow about 1.7 million people. Bolsheviks also controlled Saratov early on – with over 200,000 people it was bigger than any of the Russian cities you listed that were outside their control.
     

    OK, last try and I will go. The issue is not population, the issue is industries per your statment that Bolsheviks controlled main industrial areas. You give me their populations. No matter if Yekaterinburg, or Chelyabinsk (also 70 000 then> or Zlatoust were smaller--they all were part of Ural industrial area which was known primarily for its iron works. Chelyabinsk was called also a "Behind the Urals Chicago". This is a well-known fact, today it is an industrial cluster which developed on the basis of those old industrial Russian cities. Now, to Samara from Wiki:

    The quick growth of Samara's economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was determined by the scope of the bread trade and flour milling business. The Samara Brewery came into being in the 1880s, as well as the Kenitser Macaroni Factory, an ironworks, a confectionery factory, and a factory producing matches. The town acquired a number of magnificent private residences and administrative buildings. The Trading Houses of the Subbotins, Kurlins, Shikhobalovs, and Smirnovs—founders of the flour milling industry, who contributed a lot to the development of the city—were widely known not only across Russia, but also internationally wherever Samara's wheat was exported. In its rapid growth Samara resembled many young North American cities, and contemporaries coined the names "Russian New Orleans" and "Russian Chicago" for the city.[citation needed]

    By the start of the 20th century, the population exceeded 100,000, and the city was the major trading and industrial center of the Volga region.

    Surely, poor Whites lost because they had no access to industrial centers (sarcasm). Population and industries are not always directly linked.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @AP

    Baloney, in my post above I presented a link to resources on that–not-communist but Russian (before Revolution) resources.
     
    The link you posted, written by some weirdo Marxist-Leninist ideologue, included only a snapshot of Russia in 1910-1913 showing that Russia had already in some measures (such as steel production) surpassed France, while conveniently ignoring the dramatic progress Russia had made in order to get to that point.

    Russia was losing out to leading industrial powers of a period
     
    The link you posted to made sure to describe this "losing out" as occurring in per capita terms. That's because Russia had the highest fertility rate in the world (7.5 in 1900). Its dramatic population growth - a good thing - outpaced even its dramatic industrial growth.

    while there are many strategic and operational excuses (some legitimate) for the loss of Russo-Japanese War, humiliation of Tsushima and, literally, selling of Port Arthur by Stessel were direct indicators of overall Russian backwardness even despite some strides made in industrialization. Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period.
     
    This is very true. Russia was undergoing rapid industrialization and modernization in the last decades of the Tsarist system. In 1905 it lost to Japan. In 1914 it defeated the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Przemsysl was A-H's Verdun - Russia won) and the Ottoman Empire, grabbing about 10% of the latter's territory (compare to British performance against that same empire at Gallipoli). Russia lost some territory (no more significant than the Western Allies' loss of Belgium and northern France) to the Germans but was able to maintain a stable front.

    Nicky was stupid to get Russia into the war so soon. How would Russia have performed in 1925? In 1935? With another 10 or 20 years of industrialization and massive population growth?

    The link you posted to made sure to describe this “losing out” as occurring in per capita terms.

    The link I posted refers to the works of NON-communist Russian sociologists, doctors etc. precisely at the point of time which universally considered the zenith of Czarist Russia development. Like this:

    http://arctus.livejournal.com/105152.html

    Is this: Статистический ежегодник на 1914 год. Под ред. В. И. Шараго. СПб., 1914. С.817. also “Marxist-Leninist propaganda”? Is Russia’s humiliation, and as a consequence first revolution, in Russo-Japanese War an indicator of the great state of Russia in 1904? Is the fact that Russian Army in Crimea in 1854-55 fought with smooth-bore guns against fully rifled French-British expeditionary force an indicator of a great development? Why don’t you try to check out of library Milyukov’s Russia And Its Crisis? OK, here is a free version for you:

    https://www.questia.com/read/1662220/russia-and-its-crisis

    Is Pavel Milyukov a Marxist-Leninist, while simultaneously being a Cadet? Nobody denies Russia’s achievements in pre-Revolutionary period but it is impossible to close eyes to a huge bulk of problems which existed in Russia prior to WW I . It is becoming nauseating by now to hear (and listen) to the same Marxist-Leninist ideological “argument” against those who methodically present viable facts, numbers and ideas about those times, while not being Marxist-Leninists in any capacity. But in the end, no matter how long we are going to be talking about THAT Russia, from art, to economics to wars we will return time after time to the main Russian question of 18-19th centuries–the question of peasantry.

    Bertrand Russel, while speaking to Lady Adaline, noted that if to consider Russia being populated by characters such as described in Dostoevsky’s novels, it might seem that Bolsheviks seem to be a reasonable government for such people. While grossly exaggerated by Russel (hardly a Russophile himself) there is a rational thought in it. In the end, these were Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists, whatever one calls them, who did modernize Russia–a feat of a no small scale. Even Peter The Great, hardly a humanitarian, failed to go all the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The link I posted refers to the works of NON-communist Russian sociologists, doctors etc
     
    The link you posted was written by Alex Battler, Marxist-Leninist weirdo. He may have used or misused various other sources. I pointed out how he did so.

    Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over. Bolshevism wasn't necessary for Russia's modernization and industrialization.

    Is Russia’s humiliation, and as a consequence first revolution, in Russo-Japanese War an indicator of the great state of Russia in 1904? Is the fact that Russian Army in Crimea in 1854-55 fought with smooth-bore guns against fully rifled French-British expeditionary force an indicator of a great development?
     
    I'm not sure why you bring up the Crimean War of 1854 when Russia began its modernization drive afterwards.

    As I have already written, Russia was defeated by an emerging world power in 1904. Ten years later it defeated two world powers - Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire - at the same time, while maintaining a stable front against a third. Is this not significant progress?

    Is Pavel Milyukov a Marxist-Leninist, while simultaneously being a Cadet? Nobody denies Russia’s achievements in pre-Revolutionary period but it is impossible to close eyes to a huge bulk of problems which existed in Russia prior to WW I .

     

    Sure. And the point is that those problems were being taken care before the Bolshevik takeover.

    But in the end, no matter how long we are going to be talking about THAT Russia, from art, to economics to wars we will return time after time to the main Russian question of 18-19th centuries–the question of peasantry.
     
    I don't think the Bolshevik "final solution" to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia's fertility rate) was better than Stolypin's reforms.

    In the end, these were Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists, whatever one calls them, who did modernize Russia
     
    Yes they did, and the millions dead, and ultimate wreckage of the 90s was a testament to their failure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. “Much as I dislike mass immigration, I’d admit: the immigrants should not be blamed, but their importers in the government and business.”

    Oh yeah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. @Israel Shamir
    Gentlemen, your very interesting and knowledgeable discussion mainly deals with Russia's communist past. Please pay attention to the point of my article. We live now in the middle of neo-liberal remake of the world, and that has to be stopped, in my view. Not only in Russia, but in the US and Europe, too. We hoped that it can be achieved by alt-right. Now we see it does not happen. Nice billionaires are not going to save us. That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin - in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. I am not going to weep if Mr Soros and his friends hedge-fund-managers will meet a hard fate in a new Cheka.
    Russia's communists had to deal with their problems in a retarded and devastated Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states - because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.
    We have to save the world, for us and for our children - not only save Russia.

    Israel, read Lenin. It is all there. You probably meant also another Lenin, not Stalin as it was Iliich who led Bolsheviks towards victory and even then he only could do it when conditions were right. Party and the whole structure must be in place to capitalize on such opportunity. Looking for similarminded, young, bright. Eager for justice and fairness, unburdened by kids and families and ready to risk their well being and possibly life is a good start. Locals are content to just vent their anger

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @AP

    You know, I am always amused by people drawing direct linear connection between population size and some number taken completely out of the context. I wrote about a corps of Czechs which was one of many military contingents in Russia, others were 70 000 Japanese, 12 000 Americans, thousands of British.
     
    And how active of a role did these others play? The French controlled Odessa but as a soon as a hostile force appeared they left without fighting. In contrast, Latvians were the ones without whom the Bolsheviks would have lost Moscow and probably power altogether (I realize Latvia had been part of the Russian Empire).

    "and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base"

    Ah, really? So since when Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Kharkov, Yekaterinburg , Rostov, even Baku stopped being “industrial base” in Russian Empire?
     

    I wrote, "most." In 1913 Samara had 144,000 people, Rostov 172,000 people, Yekaterinburg 70,000 people.

    St. Petersburg had 2.1 million people, Moscow about 1.7 million people. Bolsheviks also controlled Saratov early on - with over 200,000 people it was bigger than any of the Russian cities you listed that were outside their control.

    So yes, Bolsheviks controlled most of Russia's industry, and they held it in a compact territory.


    "Bolsheviks were more ruthless and more disciplined, had a compact territory, and had captured most of Russia’s industrial base. "

    Apart from obvious mis-argumentation about “industrial base” you point is exactly what is this whole discussion about–you just listed qualities which separate great armies from merely good ones.
     

    For example, Bolsheviks were thinking "outside the box" by holding officers' families hostage and murdering them, if officers didn't fight for them. They engaged in unprecedented mass slaughter of opponents, such as gassing peasant-rebels in Siberia. Cheka blew the old okhrana out of the water in terms of sheer brutality. This is "great" in the way that ISIS behavior is "great." But it was effective in terms of hijacking the country.

    I wrote, “most.” In 1913 Samara had 144,000 people, Rostov 172,000 people, Yekaterinburg 70,000 people.

    St. Petersburg had 2.1 million people, Moscow about 1.7 million people. Bolsheviks also controlled Saratov early on – with over 200,000 people it was bigger than any of the Russian cities you listed that were outside their control.

    OK, last try and I will go. The issue is not population, the issue is industries per your statment that Bolsheviks controlled main industrial areas. You give me their populations. No matter if Yekaterinburg, or Chelyabinsk (also 70 000 then> or Zlatoust were smaller–they all were part of Ural industrial area which was known primarily for its iron works. Chelyabinsk was called also a “Behind the Urals Chicago”. This is a well-known fact, today it is an industrial cluster which developed on the basis of those old industrial Russian cities. Now, to Samara from Wiki:

    The quick growth of Samara’s economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was determined by the scope of the bread trade and flour milling business. The Samara Brewery came into being in the 1880s, as well as the Kenitser Macaroni Factory, an ironworks, a confectionery factory, and a factory producing matches. The town acquired a number of magnificent private residences and administrative buildings. The Trading Houses of the Subbotins, Kurlins, Shikhobalovs, and Smirnovs—founders of the flour milling industry, who contributed a lot to the development of the city—were widely known not only across Russia, but also internationally wherever Samara’s wheat was exported. In its rapid growth Samara resembled many young North American cities, and contemporaries coined the names “Russian New Orleans” and “Russian Chicago” for the city.[citation needed]

    By the start of the 20th century, the population exceeded 100,000, and the city was the major trading and industrial center of the Volga region.

    Surely, poor Whites lost because they had no access to industrial centers (sarcasm). Population and industries are not always directly linked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The issue is not population, the issue is industries per your statment that Bolsheviks controlled main industrial areas. You give me their populations. No matter if Yekaterinburg, or Chelyabinsk (also 70 000 then> or Zlatoust were smaller–they all were part of Ural industrial area which was known primarily for its iron works.
     
    In the late 19th century and early 20th century population growth went hand in hand with industrialization. Rapidly growing population = industry. Sure it wasn't a perfect correlation but this was true in general.

    When St. Petersburg's population increased from 840,000 people in 1880 to 2.2 million in 1914 this was largely due to industrialization. There were more factory workers in St. Petersburg with its 2.2 million people than in the small Urals cities (Yekaterinburg 70,000 people, Chelyabinsk 70,000 Zlatoust 29,000 people, etc.).

    St. Petersburg was the main manufacturing base in Russia. The Putilov factory (later Kirov plant) was one of Russia's main weapons producers and the single main producer of artillery.

    The quick growth of Samara’s economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was determined by the scope of the bread trade and flour milling business. The Samara Brewery came into being in the 1880s, as well as the Kenitser Macaroni Factory, an ironworks, a confectionery factory, and a factory producing matches.
     
    So the Whites had Samara (population 144,000 people) with its matches, brewery, macaroni, and flour mills and the Reds had St. Petersburg (population 2.2 million) with its massive arms production.

    Surely, poor Whites lost because they had no access to industrial centers (sarcasm)
     
    As I said, they lost because they had less, not no, access to industry. The Urals produced a lot of iron but there were many more factories in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Reds had most of the industry, their territory was compact and this more easily defended (Whites were scattered) and they were more evil/ruthless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @AP
    Trying again, as my last post disappeared.

    Well, the rate of getting to 1 from 0 is infinity.
     
    Russia did not get to 1 from 0, it got to France from 0. France was a great power. That is a lot fo progress.

    Martyanov wrote a true statement - "Wars are the best litmus test, no better one exists, period."

    In 1905 Russia was defeated by Japan.

    Ten years later, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers - Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, and held its ground against the third. Russia did much better against the Ottomans than did the British.

    Do you assume that Russia would have stopped growing in power in 1915 had the Bolsheviks not taken over?

    I’m not sure what the phrase “Bolshevik sacrifices” means exactly, but I don’t see anything in your comment to justify the conclusion that the industrialization of the 1930s (despite all its unfortunate side-effects) was ‘for nothing’.
     
    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks. It didn't need Bolshevism to do these things. Bolshevism added millions of lost lives (and tens of millions of lost population, when one factors in the millions of children and grandchildren those people didn't have) and lost territory. These sacrifice were for nothing, because they didn't provide anything that wouldn't have happened anyways, but at a terrible cost that was unnecessary.

    Claiming that the senseless tragedy of Bolshevik rule "got us modernizned" is a false way of giving meaning to the unnecessary suffering.

    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks.

    It was a quintessential backwater society. Till the 1930s, most of the population didn’t even wear shoes, concocting their own primitive footwear from bark. They didn’t know hours and minutes. And no, not knowing about hours is not the same as not believing in space travels.

    It didn’t need Bolshevism to do these things.

    Your opinion noted, but the fact is: it got involved in a war it couldn’t manage, and after a series of crises it got Bolshevism.

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population, won the civil war, established new borders and control over the territory within these borders. It then introduced NEP, a version of state-controlled capitalism.

    At that point it continued industrializing (GOELRO), but nowhere as vigorous as what happened later, in the 1930s, when the leadership rejected both the right-wing pro-market strategy and the left-wing-globalist strategy.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.

    So, my thesis is that, in view of the geopolitical situation, it was a reasonable national strategy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    You were raised in Mao's China weren't you?
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    ... point it continued industrializing (GOELRO)...
     
    Incidentally, which was started in Imperial Russia - in 1913, Russia had the world's fourth largest electricity generation capacity after the US, Germany, and Britain.

    https://aftershock.news/?q=node/383140
    , @AP

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population,
     
    Um, no. It got 25% of the vote in the 1917 election (and this was probably an overepresentation because the vote was probably less accessible in rural areas). 25% isn't a majority.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.
     
    Somehow most societies (Britain, Germany, France, USA recently Korea) managed to rapidly industrialize without totalitarianism and sacrificing millions of people. In fact, Russia was doing exactly that - catching up to France by the time the war started - without Bolshevism. You must think that Russians are some awfully hopeless monkeys that they could only industrialize through Stalinism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Rurik

    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors?
     
    yes, Ron Paul was just such a choice. Sure, they cheated him and used every underhanded device to destroy his candidacy, but I remember being appalled at how few people (white or otherwise) had any interest in his message. I was one of the enthusiasts, but few people (white or otherwise) I knew were on board- (in spite of my best efforts, although I'm sure I did convince a few to take a second look). For the gals, he was too old and thin and whiney sounding. For a lot of (white) men I knew/know, he just didn't resonate with their agendas. White liberals called him a 'white supremacist', because he supported borders and the Constitution, and presumably equal treatment- which mean no more Affirmative Action. Conservatives and Christians didn't seem to like him because he wasn't rabidly against abortion or speaking of Jesus or 'Israel' like Dubya did. It was all about their narrow agendas, and 'what good is he going to do for me personally'?

    (most of the people working at rat holes like the Dept. of Education or Energy or the CIA and other organizations that Paul wanted to do away with- are white. I remember being at a Ron Paul rally and some white women tried to run some of us over, shouting obscenities from her car window. I figured she probably "worked" at the Dept. of Education or something)

    Look at why John McCain keeps getting elected as the Arizona Senator- because he promises to bring home more lucre / slop in the trough - as a senior Senator - to the venal, white Republican voters of Arizona.

    Lindsey Graham gets elected because the feckless imbeciles in South Carolina thinks this pole-smoking war pig is going to force the return of Jesus and give them their rapture- by augmenting the genocide of the Palestinians. I kid you not.

    we have much to lament from the ranks of our own, is all I'm saying. Sure, it's the Jews who've managed to wrest control of our civilization from us, and are using its institutions (and immigration and blacks, etc..) to destroy us, but all of that power was handed to them by Western ancestral leaders who borrowed shekels to kill rival monarchs in war after war. The Jews would have no power over us were it not for the eternal folly of our own leaders like Woodrow Wilson and FDR and Bush and Clinton and Trump and the sheople who follow them.


    You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don’t blame all whites.
     
    I certainly don't blame all whites Seamus, but if we're going to set our house in order, then we're going to have to look in a mirror. I've tried to act as a defender of the American people from time to time, as I don't consider the average middle or working class American as a vile war mongering menace to the rest of the planet, but then someone will point out the Republican voters of Arizona, and I'm left speechless. There's simply no defense of an American (or anyone else) that would pull the lever for a man like John McCain. imho

    I respect Ron Paul. Even though I’m not a libertarian, I would have voted for him because of his views on foreign policy and constitutional rights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Israel Shamir’s Jew-baiting articles are more interesting in the sense that a knowledgeable member of the Tribe is revealing some esoteric inner workings unbeknownst to the goyim; however, once he delves into the fantasy crap (wishing this or that would happen), all the fun goes out of it. Stick to what you know best, Israel!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. @Alden
    Of course, there were 2 revolutions, one in February and the one in October. The October one was O Holy Night, that glorious night, the night mankind was saved from itself, when Lenin and his well paid mob took over the Duma. I guess you assume you are the only person who knows that.

    AND another thing I hate about commies liberals and Jews is the way they assume that they are the only ones who know anything. The 2 revolutions are explained in every book ever written about the Russisn revolution.

    And you even put in links in case us dumb ignorant deplorable proles wanted proof of something we learned in freshman year of high school social studies aka world history.

    I’m not the only one who knows, because I have it from books.
    Your assertion that anyone in high school is taught this, highly improbable for me.
    Here in Europe only the november 1917 revolution is ever mentioned.
    Except in books I mentioned, how many people read books these days, I wonder.
    USA citizens I met personally did not seem to know very much.
    I gave one of them Anne Applebaum, ‘Between East and West, Across the borderlands of Europe’, Londen, 1995, he read it, and told me he had no idea that so many peoples existed.
    USA troops reaching NE France at the end of 1944 were amazed that German speaking French did exist.
    In the USA deep interior in a small restaurant they asked me where I came from, Netherlands, Holland, did not seem to ring a bell, it was the only time in my life I added ‘Europe’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    How do you think an ordinary working class deplorable prole American learned about the 2 revolutions? In school when i was 14 years old

    Obviously you never attended American schools freshman year, age 14 and took the required social studies aka world history course. It's superficial of course and just covers the basics. But the 2 revolutions are mentioned I learned it in the 1950s. My children learned it in the 1980s. My grand children learned and will learn in from the standard freshman social studies course for 14 year olds.

    Typical academic commie, you know everything and nobody else knows anything.
    , @Alden
    So you, who never attended an American high school presume to know about what is and is not taught in American high schools. You must be a leftist college professor.
    , @Alden
    Typical commie European, you sneer at the American troops who drive the Nazis out of France and the Netherlands because they didn't know that some French speak German and this is proof that Americans are ignorant of that the fact that there were 2 revolutions.

    Maybe those ignorant American troops should have stayed home and left the Netherlands to the Nazis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @jimbojones

    I am very sorry that the Counterpunch, a publication I liked and wrote for many years (admittedly, in Alex Cockburn’s days), has succumbed to that disease.
     
    I understand what you are saying about Counterpunch. I gave up on the magazine back in December, when I read this monstrosity:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/30/why-white-genocide-is-key-to-the-earths-survival-white-genocide-from-baldwin-to-ciccariello-maher/
    The opening few words of the piece say it all: "White genocide would not only be good, it is necessary and even unavoidable..." The author then proceeds to explain that "white genocide" doesn't really mean what you and I think it means... Give me a break.

    What the fuck. I just read that article. How Is that able to be published and not be called what it is? If a white person were to say anything close to that in public , the person would be murdered within a week, not to mention it wouldnt be published anywhere other then a persons personal blog. If white people as a whole dont start to open their eyes and see whats coming, we wont be here for much longer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Cortes says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Whites was close to preordained due to their logistical advantage and superiority in munitioning potential. Also – supported by half the world, really? Allied aid to the Whites was negligible, they pretty much just occupied a few far-flung ports.
     
    It was so "negligible" that Czech 50 000 strong corps controlled Trans-Siberian Railway. Operations around Caspian also were supported quite well by British who had a huge vested interest in the region. It was not "negligible". Whites, however, were preordained to defeat not by their weakness but by, totally expected, repetition of scenario of a complete fragmentation in pursuit of political, monetary and military benefits of White movement's benefactors. Where did I see numerous repeats of this scenario, with almost the same benefactors, in my lifetime, hm, I wonder? As per ports--there is a reason why ports (any ports) have a strategic (not even operational) significance.

    The Nazis got into a position of absolute power in Germany by a series of unhappy flukes. This it was at all within the realm of possibility was thanks to the fear of Communism in the background (not an injustified one in the context of that time).
     
    A derivative (maybe not a first one even) of the draconian measures applied to defeated Germany. With Russia (hypothetically) joining the circle of victors, defeated Germany would have been even more pressed into the economic catastrophe. Enough to recall with what Lloyd Geroge responded to Woodrow Wilson's appeal for war without reparations. I wonder what Russia would tell Wilson and what she would impose on Germany, granted that Russia's casualties in WW I dwarfed those of Britain. But in the end, 1929 Great Depression would have happened no matter what. Some form of German nationalist fundamentalism was, hm, preordained and Hitler was by no means a fluke. Nor was international communist movement a fluke either, once one considers horrors and consequences WW I and later Great Depression brought to Europe.

    Agree with most of your points but the Czech contingent did include elements of less than 100% reliability…like

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Hašek

    His short pieces collected as “The Red Commissar” are worth a read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Alden says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors? You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don't blame all whites.

    Liberals and commies can’t do anything about the huge corporations that are destroying the earth and operating slave labor factories like Nike’s hell holes in Indonesia.

    So they just constantly attack Whites like you and me because we are the only White people they can destroy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I'm not the only one who knows, because I have it from books.
    Your assertion that anyone in high school is taught this, highly improbable for me.
    Here in Europe only the november 1917 revolution is ever mentioned.
    Except in books I mentioned, how many people read books these days, I wonder.
    USA citizens I met personally did not seem to know very much.
    I gave one of them Anne Applebaum, ‘Between East and West, Across the borderlands of Europe’, Londen, 1995, he read it, and told me he had no idea that so many peoples existed.
    USA troops reaching NE France at the end of 1944 were amazed that German speaking French did exist.
    In the USA deep interior in a small restaurant they asked me where I came from, Netherlands, Holland, did not seem to ring a bell, it was the only time in my life I added 'Europe'.

    How do you think an ordinary working class deplorable prole American learned about the 2 revolutions? In school when i was 14 years old

    Obviously you never attended American schools freshman year, age 14 and took the required social studies aka world history course. It’s superficial of course and just covers the basics. But the 2 revolutions are mentioned I learned it in the 1950s. My children learned it in the 1980s. My grand children learned and will learn in from the standard freshman social studies course for 14 year olds.

    Typical academic commie, you know everything and nobody else knows anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I'm not the only one who knows, because I have it from books.
    Your assertion that anyone in high school is taught this, highly improbable for me.
    Here in Europe only the november 1917 revolution is ever mentioned.
    Except in books I mentioned, how many people read books these days, I wonder.
    USA citizens I met personally did not seem to know very much.
    I gave one of them Anne Applebaum, ‘Between East and West, Across the borderlands of Europe’, Londen, 1995, he read it, and told me he had no idea that so many peoples existed.
    USA troops reaching NE France at the end of 1944 were amazed that German speaking French did exist.
    In the USA deep interior in a small restaurant they asked me where I came from, Netherlands, Holland, did not seem to ring a bell, it was the only time in my life I added 'Europe'.

    So you, who never attended an American high school presume to know about what is and is not taught in American high schools. You must be a leftist college professor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Alden says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks.
     
    It was a quintessential backwater society. Till the 1930s, most of the population didn't even wear shoes, concocting their own primitive footwear from bark. They didn't know hours and minutes. And no, not knowing about hours is not the same as not believing in space travels.

    It didn’t need Bolshevism to do these things.
     
    Your opinion noted, but the fact is: it got involved in a war it couldn't manage, and after a series of crises it got Bolshevism.

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population, won the civil war, established new borders and control over the territory within these borders. It then introduced NEP, a version of state-controlled capitalism.

    At that point it continued industrializing (GOELRO), but nowhere as vigorous as what happened later, in the 1930s, when the leadership rejected both the right-wing pro-market strategy and the left-wing-globalist strategy.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.

    So, my thesis is that, in view of the geopolitical situation, it was a reasonable national strategy.

    You were raised in Mao’s China weren’t you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    You were raised in Mao’s China weren’t you?
     
    I find it encouraging that you realize that narratives we internalize are produced by our social conditioning. And in that spirit perhaps you could make the next natural step and analyze critically your own narrative. Believe me, it doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I'm not the only one who knows, because I have it from books.
    Your assertion that anyone in high school is taught this, highly improbable for me.
    Here in Europe only the november 1917 revolution is ever mentioned.
    Except in books I mentioned, how many people read books these days, I wonder.
    USA citizens I met personally did not seem to know very much.
    I gave one of them Anne Applebaum, ‘Between East and West, Across the borderlands of Europe’, Londen, 1995, he read it, and told me he had no idea that so many peoples existed.
    USA troops reaching NE France at the end of 1944 were amazed that German speaking French did exist.
    In the USA deep interior in a small restaurant they asked me where I came from, Netherlands, Holland, did not seem to ring a bell, it was the only time in my life I added 'Europe'.

    Typical commie European, you sneer at the American troops who drive the Nazis out of France and the Netherlands because they didn’t know that some French speak German and this is proof that Americans are ignorant of that the fact that there were 2 revolutions.

    Maybe those ignorant American troops should have stayed home and left the Netherlands to the Nazis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    If there had never been a Roosevelt WWII might have been avoided.

    Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath’, Caldwell, Idaho, 1953

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. “(c)
    Should have been:
    We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we cannot crush. “(c)
    Nevertheless, without USA aid Stalin's attack would have resulted in a defeat.
    There is no doubt whatsoever that Comintern wanted world domination.

    This post is totally incoherent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks.
     
    It was a quintessential backwater society. Till the 1930s, most of the population didn't even wear shoes, concocting their own primitive footwear from bark. They didn't know hours and minutes. And no, not knowing about hours is not the same as not believing in space travels.

    It didn’t need Bolshevism to do these things.
     
    Your opinion noted, but the fact is: it got involved in a war it couldn't manage, and after a series of crises it got Bolshevism.

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population, won the civil war, established new borders and control over the territory within these borders. It then introduced NEP, a version of state-controlled capitalism.

    At that point it continued industrializing (GOELRO), but nowhere as vigorous as what happened later, in the 1930s, when the leadership rejected both the right-wing pro-market strategy and the left-wing-globalist strategy.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.

    So, my thesis is that, in view of the geopolitical situation, it was a reasonable national strategy.

    … point it continued industrializing (GOELRO)…

    Incidentally, which was started in Imperial Russia – in 1913, Russia had the world’s fourth largest electricity generation capacity after the US, Germany, and Britain.

    https://aftershock.news/?q=node/383140

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Alden says:
    @Israel Shamir
    Russia in 1960s was a veritable paradise. I remember as I grew there - it was a country of equality, of great future, of good schools, of strong spirit of solidarity. You didn't even need money - life was very easy. Actually, then life was easy in Western Europe, too - but it was harder than in Russia. I know that from my own first-hand experience. Pity afterwards things went downhill. I connect it with the failed 1968 revolution.

    America in the 1960s was also a paradise compared to what it is today. For example, my home state California public school system always scored in the top ten of schools in the country.
    But now, due to the fact that the cut throat capitalists have replaced the White workers with primitive functionally retarded Hispanic Indians California schools rank 48 or 49 out of 50 because most of the kids are functionally regarded primitive Indian Hispanics

    BTW, did your Mom have to do the laundry by hand in the communal bathtub?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Israel Shamir
    No, we had a washing machine. We also had a bath tub and a shower - very usual in Russia, but very rare in England (no showers) and France (no bathtubs) of sixties
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Imagine if half of you country was raised to the ground and 10-15% of your population was dead.
    USSR had to rebuild itself form the ashes twice in 20th century.
    We had bath in all apartments we lived in after we got out of communalka.
    And guess what, we did not have to pay for taking baths. You should avoid talking about things you have no clue about. We were not wealthy or rich but we lived happy and fulfilling lives and we had everything to cover all Maslou needs and then some.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Alden says:
    @Lyttenburgh

    Shamir is against abortion because it murders unborn babies. Yet he worships Lenin, the Cheka, Trotsky, Mao, Chou en Lai and their minions who massacred 200 million of their own citizens.
     
    StronK Kool Aid you are drinking here, userperson "Alden". Source about 200 millions, plox?

    Read the Black Book of Communism. The 200 million are their own citizens killed by the Russian and Chinese communist regimes, not those killed in wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Israel Shamir

    Read the Black Book of Communism
     
    - it is a book of fiction, written at the bankers' order. Believing such fake history can cause damage to your mental health.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Read the Black Book of Communism.
     
    This book relies just a little bit less than entirely on rumours, unverified data and hearsay. It is very shallow on sources and is widely criticized as a propaganda piece with too much inaccuracies to be treated as a definite and respected source. Besides, the authors of this excuse of a book appeared to be unable to distinguish of those who were truly executed and those who were repressed, ergo this insane number in millions.

    Try again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Alden says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    They are not Left. That's where their opportunism got them.

    They contribute to the left democrat party and all the anti White working class causes and call them selves left.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The link you posted to made sure to describe this “losing out” as occurring in per capita terms.
     
    The link I posted refers to the works of NON-communist Russian sociologists, doctors etc. precisely at the point of time which universally considered the zenith of Czarist Russia development. Like this:

    http://arctus.livejournal.com/105152.html

    Is this: Статистический ежегодник на 1914 год. Под ред. В. И. Шараго. СПб., 1914. С.817. also "Marxist-Leninist propaganda"? Is Russia's humiliation, and as a consequence first revolution, in Russo-Japanese War an indicator of the great state of Russia in 1904? Is the fact that Russian Army in Crimea in 1854-55 fought with smooth-bore guns against fully rifled French-British expeditionary force an indicator of a great development? Why don't you try to check out of library Milyukov's Russia And Its Crisis? OK, here is a free version for you:

    https://www.questia.com/read/1662220/russia-and-its-crisis

    Is Pavel Milyukov a Marxist-Leninist, while simultaneously being a Cadet? Nobody denies Russia's achievements in pre-Revolutionary period but it is impossible to close eyes to a huge bulk of problems which existed in Russia prior to WW I . It is becoming nauseating by now to hear (and listen) to the same Marxist-Leninist ideological "argument" against those who methodically present viable facts, numbers and ideas about those times, while not being Marxist-Leninists in any capacity. But in the end, no matter how long we are going to be talking about THAT Russia, from art, to economics to wars we will return time after time to the main Russian question of 18-19th centuries--the question of peasantry.

    Bertrand Russel, while speaking to Lady Adaline, noted that if to consider Russia being populated by characters such as described in Dostoevsky's novels, it might seem that Bolsheviks seem to be a reasonable government for such people. While grossly exaggerated by Russel (hardly a Russophile himself) there is a rational thought in it. In the end, these were Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists, whatever one calls them, who did modernize Russia--a feat of a no small scale. Even Peter The Great, hardly a humanitarian, failed to go all the way.

    The link I posted refers to the works of NON-communist Russian sociologists, doctors etc

    The link you posted was written by Alex Battler, Marxist-Leninist weirdo. He may have used or misused various other sources. I pointed out how he did so.

    Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over. Bolshevism wasn’t necessary for Russia’s modernization and industrialization.

    Is Russia’s humiliation, and as a consequence first revolution, in Russo-Japanese War an indicator of the great state of Russia in 1904? Is the fact that Russian Army in Crimea in 1854-55 fought with smooth-bore guns against fully rifled French-British expeditionary force an indicator of a great development?

    I’m not sure why you bring up the Crimean War of 1854 when Russia began its modernization drive afterwards.

    As I have already written, Russia was defeated by an emerging world power in 1904. Ten years later it defeated two world powers – Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire – at the same time, while maintaining a stable front against a third. Is this not significant progress?

    Is Pavel Milyukov a Marxist-Leninist, while simultaneously being a Cadet? Nobody denies Russia’s achievements in pre-Revolutionary period but it is impossible to close eyes to a huge bulk of problems which existed in Russia prior to WW I .

    Sure. And the point is that those problems were being taken care before the Bolshevik takeover.

    But in the end, no matter how long we are going to be talking about THAT Russia, from art, to economics to wars we will return time after time to the main Russian question of 18-19th centuries–the question of peasantry.

    I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia’s fertility rate) was better than Stolypin’s reforms.

    In the end, these were Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists, whatever one calls them, who did modernize Russia

    Yes they did, and the millions dead, and ultimate wreckage of the 90s was a testament to their failure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    "I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia’s fertility rate) was better than Stolypin’s reforms."

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
    Nobody intentionally starved peasants. Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars. Starvation of 30's was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
    Regarding crashing demographic. Demography was doing just fine. Russian demography was crashed by Liberal Capitalistic reforms of 80/90's and for 25 years as of now Russia is unable to reverse the trend. Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing and even after WW2 RF was steadily adding around 1 million annually until 1992...
    Now look at the trend that all white European countries have one common sign, inability of core population to basically replace itself under modern Capitalism. Hence come immigration and refugees issue but the real problem is inability for original population across Europe, Northern America and former European parts of the Soviet Union to have enough babies to replace population. What you cannot see the elephant? Did you ever ask a question as to why this is happening? I will tell you. Because later capitalism and life are incompatible. The system created is inhuman hence humans fail to flourish.

    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over.
     
    It is becoming ridiculous. For crying out loud (instead of Broghouse and Effron) look at famines of 1891, 1892, 1897 etc., look at the structure of Russia's so called agricultural sector at that time--an unmitigated disaster.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891%E2%80%9392

    https://ibhistoryf.wikispaces.com/The+Russian+Famine+of+1891+-+1892

    Read Leo Tolstoy's "Hunger" for crying out loud. Throw away this BS meme that Russia "fed the whole world", Russia barely provided 10% of European "diet". Look at great Russian classic literature from Radishev to Nekrasov, to Gogol, to Goncharov to Tolstoy--it is all about Russian village and peasantry. By early 20th Century Russia had 10 000 000 peasant yards (hozyaistv) which COULD NOT even sustain themselves, this is about 50-70 million people who lived in a state of permanent hunger (malnutrition). Look at the history of Russian peasant obshina and ask yourself a question why by WW I more than 40% of Russian Army recruits were rejected for the health reasons. Most peasant ate meat for the first time in Russia's Navy and Army.


    Sure. And the point is that those problems were being taken care before the Bolshevik takeover.
     
    You know, each time I read this kind of stuff I begin to understand what an abyss separates meme culture and real knowledge. It doesn't matter that dozens of gubernias (sometimes as high as 24) were pretty much in the constant famine or semi-famine state for decades, I recon.

    The link you posted was written by Alex Battler, Marxist-Leninist weirdo. He may have used or misused various other sources. I pointed out how he did so.
     
    OMG. Sir, the author could be a pedophile, for all I care, look at the links at leading Russian (pre-Revolutionary) scientists, sociologists, economists--none of the Marxist-Leninist. I provided you with full work by Milyukov. Is he "misusing" the sources. Was Leo Tolstoy a Marxist?

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Terrible_Question


    I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successfu
     
    BS. Kulaks were usury generators and known in obshinas as "miroedy", but here we have to come back to square one--it is difficult to communicate with people who "know" Russia's history from Solzhenitsyn's BS and RKMP. You might be, actually, stunned to learn that Prodrazverstka is not Bolshevik "invention" but existed well before Revolution. Guess why? Yes, because Russian peasantry existed constantly on the verge or in the hunger. I am not suggesting you to read Prudnikova's works but at least try to read about Russian peasantry from Russian classics literature, obviously Nekrasov's Komu Na Rusi Zhit Horosho is a good primer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Russia was modernizing and industrializing prior to the Bolsheviks.
     
    It was a quintessential backwater society. Till the 1930s, most of the population didn't even wear shoes, concocting their own primitive footwear from bark. They didn't know hours and minutes. And no, not knowing about hours is not the same as not believing in space travels.

    It didn’t need Bolshevism to do these things.
     
    Your opinion noted, but the fact is: it got involved in a war it couldn't manage, and after a series of crises it got Bolshevism.

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population, won the civil war, established new borders and control over the territory within these borders. It then introduced NEP, a version of state-controlled capitalism.

    At that point it continued industrializing (GOELRO), but nowhere as vigorous as what happened later, in the 1930s, when the leadership rejected both the right-wing pro-market strategy and the left-wing-globalist strategy.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.

    So, my thesis is that, in view of the geopolitical situation, it was a reasonable national strategy.

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population,

    Um, no. It got 25% of the vote in the 1917 election (and this was probably an overepresentation because the vote was probably less accessible in rural areas). 25% isn’t a majority.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.

    Somehow most societies (Britain, Germany, France, USA recently Korea) managed to rapidly industrialize without totalitarianism and sacrificing millions of people. In fact, Russia was doing exactly that – catching up to France by the time the war started – without Bolshevism. You must think that Russians are some awfully hopeless monkeys that they could only industrialize through Stalinism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    My advice is to stop writing in response to repetitive clowns. Make your point and leave it. There are others who get it. Anyone of reasonable intelligence can see that Russia was on its way to being an industrialised world power, since it was similarly placed as the US with virtually limitless land, energy, minerals and water - and as direct result on the verge of a population explosion - before the communist devils showed up. I never had any hope of convincing communist idiots one way or another.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Somehow most societies (Britain, Germany, France, USA recently Korea) managed to rapidly industrialize without totalitarianism and sacrificing millions of people.
     
    Not that rapidly; see my comment 66.

    Also, without getting too much into into it: Britain sacrificed countless tens of millions of Indians (and others). The US had a bloody civil war and exterminated the American Indians. France - endless wars and revolutions. I'd say the Soviet model of super-rapid industrialization was (arguably) one of the least bloody and chaotic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I wrote, “most.” In 1913 Samara had 144,000 people, Rostov 172,000 people, Yekaterinburg 70,000 people.

    St. Petersburg had 2.1 million people, Moscow about 1.7 million people. Bolsheviks also controlled Saratov early on – with over 200,000 people it was bigger than any of the Russian cities you listed that were outside their control.
     

    OK, last try and I will go. The issue is not population, the issue is industries per your statment that Bolsheviks controlled main industrial areas. You give me their populations. No matter if Yekaterinburg, or Chelyabinsk (also 70 000 then> or Zlatoust were smaller--they all were part of Ural industrial area which was known primarily for its iron works. Chelyabinsk was called also a "Behind the Urals Chicago". This is a well-known fact, today it is an industrial cluster which developed on the basis of those old industrial Russian cities. Now, to Samara from Wiki:

    The quick growth of Samara's economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was determined by the scope of the bread trade and flour milling business. The Samara Brewery came into being in the 1880s, as well as the Kenitser Macaroni Factory, an ironworks, a confectionery factory, and a factory producing matches. The town acquired a number of magnificent private residences and administrative buildings. The Trading Houses of the Subbotins, Kurlins, Shikhobalovs, and Smirnovs—founders of the flour milling industry, who contributed a lot to the development of the city—were widely known not only across Russia, but also internationally wherever Samara's wheat was exported. In its rapid growth Samara resembled many young North American cities, and contemporaries coined the names "Russian New Orleans" and "Russian Chicago" for the city.[citation needed]

    By the start of the 20th century, the population exceeded 100,000, and the city was the major trading and industrial center of the Volga region.

    Surely, poor Whites lost because they had no access to industrial centers (sarcasm). Population and industries are not always directly linked.

    The issue is not population, the issue is industries per your statment that Bolsheviks controlled main industrial areas. You give me their populations. No matter if Yekaterinburg, or Chelyabinsk (also 70 000 then> or Zlatoust were smaller–they all were part of Ural industrial area which was known primarily for its iron works.

    In the late 19th century and early 20th century population growth went hand in hand with industrialization. Rapidly growing population = industry. Sure it wasn’t a perfect correlation but this was true in general.

    When St. Petersburg’s population increased from 840,000 people in 1880 to 2.2 million in 1914 this was largely due to industrialization. There were more factory workers in St. Petersburg with its 2.2 million people than in the small Urals cities (Yekaterinburg 70,000 people, Chelyabinsk 70,000 Zlatoust 29,000 people, etc.).

    St. Petersburg was the main manufacturing base in Russia. The Putilov factory (later Kirov plant) was one of Russia’s main weapons producers and the single main producer of artillery.

    The quick growth of Samara’s economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was determined by the scope of the bread trade and flour milling business. The Samara Brewery came into being in the 1880s, as well as the Kenitser Macaroni Factory, an ironworks, a confectionery factory, and a factory producing matches.

    So the Whites had Samara (population 144,000 people) with its matches, brewery, macaroni, and flour mills and the Reds had St. Petersburg (population 2.2 million) with its massive arms production.

    Surely, poor Whites lost because they had no access to industrial centers (sarcasm)

    As I said, they lost because they had less, not no, access to industry. The Urals produced a lot of iron but there were many more factories in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Reds had most of the industry, their territory was compact and this more easily defended (Whites were scattered) and they were more evil/ruthless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Ivan says:
    @AP

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population,
     
    Um, no. It got 25% of the vote in the 1917 election (and this was probably an overepresentation because the vote was probably less accessible in rural areas). 25% isn't a majority.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.
     
    Somehow most societies (Britain, Germany, France, USA recently Korea) managed to rapidly industrialize without totalitarianism and sacrificing millions of people. In fact, Russia was doing exactly that - catching up to France by the time the war started - without Bolshevism. You must think that Russians are some awfully hopeless monkeys that they could only industrialize through Stalinism.

    My advice is to stop writing in response to repetitive clowns. Make your point and leave it. There are others who get it. Anyone of reasonable intelligence can see that Russia was on its way to being an industrialised world power, since it was similarly placed as the US with virtually limitless land, energy, minerals and water – and as direct result on the verge of a population explosion – before the communist devils showed up. I never had any hope of convincing communist idiots one way or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I respect AM whom I respond to, and as for the others - uninvolved people read these posts, my responses are for their benefit.
    , @utu
    What Bensacon said about Lenin that "he does not know he does believe, he believes that he knows" can be applied to many ideologues but is particularly apt for pitiful orphans of Stalin and Lenin like Israel Shamir and some other commentators here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. AP says:
    @Ivan
    My advice is to stop writing in response to repetitive clowns. Make your point and leave it. There are others who get it. Anyone of reasonable intelligence can see that Russia was on its way to being an industrialised world power, since it was similarly placed as the US with virtually limitless land, energy, minerals and water - and as direct result on the verge of a population explosion - before the communist devils showed up. I never had any hope of convincing communist idiots one way or another.

    I respect AM whom I respond to, and as for the others – uninvolved people read these posts, my responses are for their benefit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Dale Walker wrote to me:
    Just read it. I’ve long felt that left and right have a common enemy. Here’s a little poem I wrote:

    Radical Political Realignment

    Sweet, or very hot
    Salt, or very sour
    Preserve against the rot
    Of Nature, and of our

    Turn hard left, or right
    (Between, bacilli prey)
    Extremes must join and fight
    The bastards every day

    My sentiment exactly!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. @Alden
    America in the 1960s was also a paradise compared to what it is today. For example, my home state California public school system always scored in the top ten of schools in the country.
    But now, due to the fact that the cut throat capitalists have replaced the White workers with primitive functionally retarded Hispanic Indians California schools rank 48 or 49 out of 50 because most of the kids are functionally regarded primitive Indian Hispanics

    BTW, did your Mom have to do the laundry by hand in the communal bathtub?

    No, we had a washing machine. We also had a bath tub and a shower – very usual in Russia, but very rare in England (no showers) and France (no bathtubs) of sixties

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Czechoslovakia dwellings with bathroom and shower cubicle

    1961 24.8%
    1980 79.7%
    1986 85.0%

    Population with adequate sanitary facilities in USSR (1980)
    50%

    Housing Policies in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union J. A. A. Silence

    https://books.google.com/books?id=6cxQAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT73&lpg=PT73&dq=soviet+union+bathrooms+showers&source=bl&ots=w7ZGkwWP6i&sig=GWwKi_5NIG6KAfbjg9yqkpPp-hc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo4b23kNjTAhXC7iYKHV5bDZQQ6AEIRzAK#v=onepage&q=soviet%20union%20bathrooms%20showers&f=false
    , @Alden
    So your family was in the top 1 percent. I have English relatives and its very true that washing machines, and running water was not universal in England or France at the time. There were still plenty of outhouses in rural areas of France and England in 1960.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Alden
    Read the Black Book of Communism. The 200 million are their own citizens killed by the Russian and Chinese communist regimes, not those killed in wars.

    Read the Black Book of Communism

    – it is a book of fiction, written at the bankers’ order. Believing such fake history can cause damage to your mental health.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. utu says:
    @Ivan
    My advice is to stop writing in response to repetitive clowns. Make your point and leave it. There are others who get it. Anyone of reasonable intelligence can see that Russia was on its way to being an industrialised world power, since it was similarly placed as the US with virtually limitless land, energy, minerals and water - and as direct result on the verge of a population explosion - before the communist devils showed up. I never had any hope of convincing communist idiots one way or another.

    What Bensacon said about Lenin that “he does not know he does believe, he believes that he knows” can be applied to many ideologues but is particularly apt for pitiful orphans of Stalin and Lenin like Israel Shamir and some other commentators here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @AP

    The Bolshevik party, supported by majority of the population,
     
    Um, no. It got 25% of the vote in the 1917 election (and this was probably an overepresentation because the vote was probably less accessible in rural areas). 25% isn't a majority.

    This vigorous industrial development was made possible by collectivization (expropriation and nationalization of the agro-sector) and ruthless demands for loyalty and efficiency.
     
    Somehow most societies (Britain, Germany, France, USA recently Korea) managed to rapidly industrialize without totalitarianism and sacrificing millions of people. In fact, Russia was doing exactly that - catching up to France by the time the war started - without Bolshevism. You must think that Russians are some awfully hopeless monkeys that they could only industrialize through Stalinism.

    Somehow most societies (Britain, Germany, France, USA recently Korea) managed to rapidly industrialize without totalitarianism and sacrificing millions of people.

    Not that rapidly; see my comment 66.

    Also, without getting too much into into it: Britain sacrificed countless tens of millions of Indians (and others). The US had a bloody civil war and exterminated the American Indians. France – endless wars and revolutions. I’d say the Soviet model of super-rapid industrialization was (arguably) one of the least bloody and chaotic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. utu says:
    @Israel Shamir
    No, we had a washing machine. We also had a bath tub and a shower - very usual in Russia, but very rare in England (no showers) and France (no bathtubs) of sixties

    Czechoslovakia dwellings with bathroom and shower cubicle

    1961 24.8%
    1980 79.7%
    1986 85.0%

    Population with adequate sanitary facilities in USSR (1980)
    50%

    Housing Policies in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union J. A. A. Silence

    https://books.google.com/books?id=6cxQAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT73&lpg=PT73&dq=soviet+union+bathrooms+showers&source=bl&ots=w7ZGkwWP6i&sig=GWwKi_5NIG6KAfbjg9yqkpPp-hc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo4b23kNjTAhXC7iYKHV5bDZQQ6AEIRzAK#v=onepage&q=soviet%20union%20bathrooms%20showers&f=false

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Alden
    You were raised in Mao's China weren't you?

    You were raised in Mao’s China weren’t you?

    I find it encouraging that you realize that narratives we internalize are produced by our social conditioning. And in that spirit perhaps you could make the next natural step and analyze critically your own narrative. Believe me, it doesn’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Alden
    Typical commie European, you sneer at the American troops who drive the Nazis out of France and the Netherlands because they didn't know that some French speak German and this is proof that Americans are ignorant of that the fact that there were 2 revolutions.

    Maybe those ignorant American troops should have stayed home and left the Netherlands to the Nazis.

    If there had never been a Roosevelt WWII might have been avoided.

    Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath’, Caldwell, Idaho, 1953

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @AP

    The link I posted refers to the works of NON-communist Russian sociologists, doctors etc
     
    The link you posted was written by Alex Battler, Marxist-Leninist weirdo. He may have used or misused various other sources. I pointed out how he did so.

    Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over. Bolshevism wasn't necessary for Russia's modernization and industrialization.

    Is Russia’s humiliation, and as a consequence first revolution, in Russo-Japanese War an indicator of the great state of Russia in 1904? Is the fact that Russian Army in Crimea in 1854-55 fought with smooth-bore guns against fully rifled French-British expeditionary force an indicator of a great development?
     
    I'm not sure why you bring up the Crimean War of 1854 when Russia began its modernization drive afterwards.

    As I have already written, Russia was defeated by an emerging world power in 1904. Ten years later it defeated two world powers - Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire - at the same time, while maintaining a stable front against a third. Is this not significant progress?

    Is Pavel Milyukov a Marxist-Leninist, while simultaneously being a Cadet? Nobody denies Russia’s achievements in pre-Revolutionary period but it is impossible to close eyes to a huge bulk of problems which existed in Russia prior to WW I .

     

    Sure. And the point is that those problems were being taken care before the Bolshevik takeover.

    But in the end, no matter how long we are going to be talking about THAT Russia, from art, to economics to wars we will return time after time to the main Russian question of 18-19th centuries–the question of peasantry.
     
    I don't think the Bolshevik "final solution" to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia's fertility rate) was better than Stolypin's reforms.

    In the end, these were Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists, whatever one calls them, who did modernize Russia
     
    Yes they did, and the millions dead, and ultimate wreckage of the 90s was a testament to their failure.

    “I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia’s fertility rate) was better than Stolypin’s reforms.”

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
    Nobody intentionally starved peasants. Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars. Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
    Regarding crashing demographic. Demography was doing just fine. Russian demography was crashed by Liberal Capitalistic reforms of 80/90′s and for 25 years as of now Russia is unable to reverse the trend. Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing and even after WW2 RF was steadily adding around 1 million annually until 1992…
    Now look at the trend that all white European countries have one common sign, inability of core population to basically replace itself under modern Capitalism. Hence come immigration and refugees issue but the real problem is inability for original population across Europe, Northern America and former European parts of the Soviet Union to have enough babies to replace population. What you cannot see the elephant? Did you ever ask a question as to why this is happening? I will tell you. Because later capitalism and life are incompatible. The system created is inhuman hence humans fail to flourish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
     
    The Jews were exploiting poor Germans. They had it coming. /s

    Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.
     
    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine, which caused excess mortality of half a million – and brought a (deservedly) huge wave of criticism and unrest down on the government.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million), 1930-33 (5-6 million), and 1947 (500,000).

    That’s right - the USSR, with a level of industrial production an order of magnitude greater than the Russian Empire in the 1890s, had a famine which killed as many people as the very worst famine of late Tsarist Russia.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
     
    Incorrect. See above.

    Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing...
     
    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high. It's pretty much impossible to have a falling population in such circumstances short of becoming the Khmer Rouge.
    , @AP

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
     
    And if he believes that, he is a fool; otherwise, he is a liar. Some of us have roots in Soviet villages and know what happened there.

    Nobody intentionally starved peasants. Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.
     
    No famine under the Tsars was as bad as the ones in the early 20s and early 30s. The famine of 1891 left half a million dead. The one in 1921-1922 left 5 million dead (mostly in the Volga region), and 1932-1933 5.5 to 7 million dead (in the Volga region and Ukraine). The Soviet ones killed 10 times more people.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
     
    Famines periodically occurred all over the world. Somehow this problem wasn't solved outside the USSR with collectivization involving an artificial famine ten times worse than the natural ones that were ended.

    Regarding crashing demographic. Demography was doing just fine. Russian demography was crashed by Liberal Capitalistic
     
    Russia had the highest fertility rate in the world in 1900 - 7.5 children per woman. It slowed down to about 5 at the time of the Revolution but began a collapse in the mid 1920s.

    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/cf124.f2.1.gif

    If not for Bolshevism there would be no less than 200 million Russians now, though more likely 250-300 million. Bolshevism was the best thing ever for the USA, it eliminated a potential long-term threat.

    Now look at the trend that all white European countries have one common sign, inability of core population to basically replace itself under modern Capitalism.
     
    The problem isn't capitalism but secularism. Fertility collapses when people stop being religious. Here is Quebec's birth rate:

    https://plot.ly/~gazettedata/22/the-birthrate-in-quebec-since-1900.png

    Quebec was a very religious country until its "quiet revolution" in the early 1960s. Quebec did not suddenly discover capitalism in the 1960s, it just lost God.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Alden
    America in the 1960s was also a paradise compared to what it is today. For example, my home state California public school system always scored in the top ten of schools in the country.
    But now, due to the fact that the cut throat capitalists have replaced the White workers with primitive functionally retarded Hispanic Indians California schools rank 48 or 49 out of 50 because most of the kids are functionally regarded primitive Indian Hispanics

    BTW, did your Mom have to do the laundry by hand in the communal bathtub?

    Imagine if half of you country was raised to the ground and 10-15% of your population was dead.
    USSR had to rebuild itself form the ashes twice in 20th century.
    We had bath in all apartments we lived in after we got out of communalka.
    And guess what, we did not have to pay for taking baths. You should avoid talking about things you have no clue about. We were not wealthy or rich but we lived happy and fulfilling lives and we had everything to cover all Maslou needs and then some.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Sergey Krieger
    "I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia’s fertility rate) was better than Stolypin’s reforms."

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
    Nobody intentionally starved peasants. Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars. Starvation of 30's was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
    Regarding crashing demographic. Demography was doing just fine. Russian demography was crashed by Liberal Capitalistic reforms of 80/90's and for 25 years as of now Russia is unable to reverse the trend. Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing and even after WW2 RF was steadily adding around 1 million annually until 1992...
    Now look at the trend that all white European countries have one common sign, inability of core population to basically replace itself under modern Capitalism. Hence come immigration and refugees issue but the real problem is inability for original population across Europe, Northern America and former European parts of the Soviet Union to have enough babies to replace population. What you cannot see the elephant? Did you ever ask a question as to why this is happening? I will tell you. Because later capitalism and life are incompatible. The system created is inhuman hence humans fail to flourish.

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.

    The Jews were exploiting poor Germans. They had it coming. /s

    Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.

    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine, which caused excess mortality of half a million – and brought a (deservedly) huge wave of criticism and unrest down on the government.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million), 1930-33 (5-6 million), and 1947 (500,000).

    That’s right – the USSR, with a level of industrial production an order of magnitude greater than the Russian Empire in the 1890s, had a famine which killed as many people as the very worst famine of late Tsarist Russia.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.

    Incorrect. See above.

    Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing…

    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high. It’s pretty much impossible to have a falling population in such circumstances short of becoming the Khmer Rouge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine,
     
    Not true--there were several famines leading to WW I. There were famines BEFORE 1891. And the key to it is very simple--lack of large farming "hozyaistv", overwhelming majority of Russia's pre-revolutionary agriculture was built around peasant "dvor"--an economic dead-end, because majority of those "dvory" either can barely or could not at all sustain themselves, forget introduction of machinery and fertilizers. Again, read the report of Russia's medical society from 1909 IIRC about causes of children mortality in peasant households. I don't have Cyrillic on my keyboard at work but you can easily find it. Actually, this report reads like a horror story.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high.
     
    And why did this mortality rate fall, wink-wink? There was supposed to be some impetus for this "demographic transition"--nothing in universe happens "just because". I wonder if a revolutionary (in fact, unprecedented in history) massive education of population had anything to do with it? It is called "modernization".

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million)
     
    USSR didn't exist then, not until end of December 1922. And yes, there was a war. War and famine are two sides of the same coin, they usually go together.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Regarding famines, I believe Andrei explained everything very well. While there is some Krieger in me, my real surname is Russian one. My father family comes from Orel region peasant stock. So, he told me that out of 10 kids his grandmother had only 5 survived to adulthood. I guess those deaths did not come from overeating and they all happened before revolution. I suspect due to mulnutrition lots of kids did not make it. I notice you are very much concerned with ethnic purity. I guess such people as Alexander Vasiliievich Souvorov, Pushkin, Lermontov, Bagration, Blok and many other would not make it to your list.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Rurik says:
    @Israel Shamir
    Gentlemen, your very interesting and knowledgeable discussion mainly deals with Russia's communist past. Please pay attention to the point of my article. We live now in the middle of neo-liberal remake of the world, and that has to be stopped, in my view. Not only in Russia, but in the US and Europe, too. We hoped that it can be achieved by alt-right. Now we see it does not happen. Nice billionaires are not going to save us. That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin - in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. I am not going to weep if Mr Soros and his friends hedge-fund-managers will meet a hard fate in a new Cheka.
    Russia's communists had to deal with their problems in a retarded and devastated Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states - because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.
    We have to save the world, for us and for our children - not only save Russia.

    That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin – in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way.

    I suspect that there are many who pine for a return of that strongman from the 1930s to deal with today’s threats and quandaries, just not sure it’s Stalin

    (knowing what I know about Stalin [and the other guy], I suspect Mr. Shamir is just yanking our chains here. ; )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @AP

    The link I posted refers to the works of NON-communist Russian sociologists, doctors etc
     
    The link you posted was written by Alex Battler, Marxist-Leninist weirdo. He may have used or misused various other sources. I pointed out how he did so.

    Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over. Bolshevism wasn't necessary for Russia's modernization and industrialization.

    Is Russia’s humiliation, and as a consequence first revolution, in Russo-Japanese War an indicator of the great state of Russia in 1904? Is the fact that Russian Army in Crimea in 1854-55 fought with smooth-bore guns against fully rifled French-British expeditionary force an indicator of a great development?
     
    I'm not sure why you bring up the Crimean War of 1854 when Russia began its modernization drive afterwards.

    As I have already written, Russia was defeated by an emerging world power in 1904. Ten years later it defeated two world powers - Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire - at the same time, while maintaining a stable front against a third. Is this not significant progress?

    Is Pavel Milyukov a Marxist-Leninist, while simultaneously being a Cadet? Nobody denies Russia’s achievements in pre-Revolutionary period but it is impossible to close eyes to a huge bulk of problems which existed in Russia prior to WW I .

     

    Sure. And the point is that those problems were being taken care before the Bolshevik takeover.

    But in the end, no matter how long we are going to be talking about THAT Russia, from art, to economics to wars we will return time after time to the main Russian question of 18-19th centuries–the question of peasantry.
     
    I don't think the Bolshevik "final solution" to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia's fertility rate) was better than Stolypin's reforms.

    In the end, these were Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists, whatever one calls them, who did modernize Russia
     
    Yes they did, and the millions dead, and ultimate wreckage of the 90s was a testament to their failure.

    Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over.

    It is becoming ridiculous. For crying out loud (instead of Broghouse and Effron) look at famines of 1891, 1892, 1897 etc., look at the structure of Russia’s so called agricultural sector at that time–an unmitigated disaster.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891%E2%80%9392

    https://ibhistoryf.wikispaces.com/The+Russian+Famine+of+1891+-+1892

    Read Leo Tolstoy’s “Hunger” for crying out loud. Throw away this BS meme that Russia “fed the whole world”, Russia barely provided 10% of European “diet”. Look at great Russian classic literature from Radishev to Nekrasov, to Gogol, to Goncharov to Tolstoy–it is all about Russian village and peasantry. By early 20th Century Russia had 10 000 000 peasant yards (hozyaistv) which COULD NOT even sustain themselves, this is about 50-70 million people who lived in a state of permanent hunger (malnutrition). Look at the history of Russian peasant obshina and ask yourself a question why by WW I more than 40% of Russian Army recruits were rejected for the health reasons. Most peasant ate meat for the first time in Russia’s Navy and Army.

    Sure. And the point is that those problems were being taken care before the Bolshevik takeover.

    You know, each time I read this kind of stuff I begin to understand what an abyss separates meme culture and real knowledge. It doesn’t matter that dozens of gubernias (sometimes as high as 24) were pretty much in the constant famine or semi-famine state for decades, I recon.

    The link you posted was written by Alex Battler, Marxist-Leninist weirdo. He may have used or misused various other sources. I pointed out how he did so.

    OMG. Sir, the author could be a pedophile, for all I care, look at the links at leading Russian (pre-Revolutionary) scientists, sociologists, economists–none of the Marxist-Leninist. I provided you with full work by Milyukov. Is he “misusing” the sources. Was Leo Tolstoy a Marxist?

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Terrible_Question

    I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successfu

    BS. Kulaks were usury generators and known in obshinas as “miroedy”, but here we have to come back to square one–it is difficult to communicate with people who “know” Russia’s history from Solzhenitsyn’s BS and RKMP. You might be, actually, stunned to learn that Prodrazverstka is not Bolshevik “invention” but existed well before Revolution. Guess why? Yes, because Russian peasantry existed constantly on the verge or in the hunger. I am not suggesting you to read Prudnikova’s works but at least try to read about Russian peasantry from Russian classics literature, obviously Nekrasov’s Komu Na Rusi Zhit Horosho is a good primer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over."

    It is becoming ridiculous. For crying out loud (instead of Broghouse and Effron) look at famines of 1891, 1892, 1897 etc., look at the structure of Russia’s so called agricultural sector at that time–an unmitigated disaster.
     
    AK just said it best:

    "People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine, which caused excess mortality of half a million – and brought a (deservedly) huge wave of criticism and unrest down on the government.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million), 1930-33 (5-6 million), and 1947 (500,000).

    That’s right – the USSR, with a level of industrial production an order of magnitude greater than the Russian Empire in the 1890s, had a famine which killed as many people as the very worst famine of late Tsarist Russia."

    Read Leo Tolstoy’s “Hunger” for crying out loud. Throw away this BS meme that Russia “fed the whole world”, Russia barely provided 10% of European “diet”.
     
    Activists tend to exaggerate in order to get attention for their cause.

    According to wiki, "By 1910, Russian wheat constituted 36.4% of the total world export of wheat." That doesn't seem like a country in the grip of chronic semi-starvation.

    Here are some data.

    Daily caloric intake in Russia 1900-1913 was 2,964. In 1960 it was 2,978. The % of calories from meat doubled (in 1997 it was only between 2,000 and 2,200).

    Russia's caloric intake in 1900-1913 was about where France's was in 1860. It was higher than Italy's in 1910 (2,600).

    Yes, this is the average for the country, presumably Russia's peasants ate more poorly than did much of its urban population (I am not sure if this is the case with its poorest workers, however). But because Russia had a large rural population the national average is probably not dramatically different from the peasant average.

    I found another source with a much lower estimate

    2,100 calories per day between 1895 and 1910 (with a drop in 1905-1906 but otherwise an upward trend, ending at about 2,550 before World War I). 2,100 is the same as modern Bolivia; 2,550 the same as modern Indonesia or Uzbekistan. I didn't realize these were all starving countries.

    It doesn’t matter that dozens of gubernias (sometimes as high as 24) were pretty much in the constant famine or semi-famine state for decades, I recon.
     
    Russia's average caloric intake doesn't support this claim, for 1900-1913.

    BS. Kulaks were usury generators and known in obshinas as “miroedy”, but here we have to come back to square one
     
    Sovok propaganda, sorry. "Usury" in this context meant someone who saved surplus money (rather than, for example, spending it on alcohol) , investing in more land than he could personally farm and renting it out in order to generate additional income. It's what peasants with higher IQs, better work ethic, and capacity to delay gratification did.

    This is how Kulaks were defined, from wiki:

    In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[3][12]

    1.use of hired labor

    2. ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor

    3. systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities

    4. involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income"

    By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak. In 1930 this list was extended to include those who were renting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, or who rented land to other farmers.

    it is difficult to communicate with people who “know” Russia’s history from Solzhenitsyn’s BS and RKMP
     
    I "know" this from my own ancestral village in what was the Russian Empire and later the USSR, which I visit whenever I travel there, and from one of my own grandparents who grew up in that village. The village had a kulak family. The kulak was self-taught to about the 3rd grade reading level, and translated documents for his neighbors. He worked hard, sometimes even on Sundays, and never drank, which was odd for the village (maybe his father had been an alcoholic or something - who knows). Eventually and probably through the help of Stolypin's reforms he accumulated enough capital to build a windmill, and charged the neighbors for its use. This was good for them (they no longer had to walk 5 km to another village to use its windmill) and for him. He also bought extra land and gave work to some migrating laborers who otherwise would not have had work. This all occurred under the Tsars and during NEP when the villages were more or less left alone. In the 1930s Bolshevik activists from the oblast center killed him and stole everything from his family, who were exiled.

    The kulak had also saved money to send his oldest sons to school in the oblast center and pay for rented rooms there; they managed to avoid the deportation. One became en engineer and served as an officer in the Soviet army, and was killed when retaking Crimea. The other became a physician.

    Those were kulaks. The smartest, most ambitious, and most hard-working of the peasants. Sovok reforms were reverse Darwinism of the Soviet countryside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. AP says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    "I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successful, enserfing the rest, starving to death a few million, and in the process crashing Russia’s fertility rate) was better than Stolypin’s reforms."

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
    Nobody intentionally starved peasants. Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars. Starvation of 30's was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
    Regarding crashing demographic. Demography was doing just fine. Russian demography was crashed by Liberal Capitalistic reforms of 80/90's and for 25 years as of now Russia is unable to reverse the trend. Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing and even after WW2 RF was steadily adding around 1 million annually until 1992...
    Now look at the trend that all white European countries have one common sign, inability of core population to basically replace itself under modern Capitalism. Hence come immigration and refugees issue but the real problem is inability for original population across Europe, Northern America and former European parts of the Soviet Union to have enough babies to replace population. What you cannot see the elephant? Did you ever ask a question as to why this is happening? I will tell you. Because later capitalism and life are incompatible. The system created is inhuman hence humans fail to flourish.

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.

    And if he believes that, he is a fool; otherwise, he is a liar. Some of us have roots in Soviet villages and know what happened there.

    Nobody intentionally starved peasants. Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.

    No famine under the Tsars was as bad as the ones in the early 20s and early 30s. The famine of 1891 left half a million dead. The one in 1921-1922 left 5 million dead (mostly in the Volga region), and 1932-1933 5.5 to 7 million dead (in the Volga region and Ukraine). The Soviet ones killed 10 times more people.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.

    Famines periodically occurred all over the world. Somehow this problem wasn’t solved outside the USSR with collectivization involving an artificial famine ten times worse than the natural ones that were ended.

    Regarding crashing demographic. Demography was doing just fine. Russian demography was crashed by Liberal Capitalistic

    Russia had the highest fertility rate in the world in 1900 – 7.5 children per woman. It slowed down to about 5 at the time of the Revolution but began a collapse in the mid 1920s.

    If not for Bolshevism there would be no less than 200 million Russians now, though more likely 250-300 million. Bolshevism was the best thing ever for the USA, it eliminated a potential long-term threat.

    Now look at the trend that all white European countries have one common sign, inability of core population to basically replace itself under modern Capitalism.

    The problem isn’t capitalism but secularism. Fertility collapses when people stop being religious. Here is Quebec’s birth rate:

    Quebec was a very religious country until its “quiet revolution” in the early 1960s. Quebec did not suddenly discover capitalism in the 1960s, it just lost God.

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Do you really think having 7 kids on average was a good sign? Mortality was very high and people only had chance to survive old years by having lots of kids. I also look ived in China to see outcomes of overpopulation. Were it not for completely crashed birth rates since 1992 RF and USSR in case of survival would be doing just fine. Most probably with RF hitting 180 millionand USSR around 400 million at least. There were 300 million of us in 1991. More than enough. You really don't want to go China and India way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Anatoly Karlin

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
     
    The Jews were exploiting poor Germans. They had it coming. /s

    Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.
     
    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine, which caused excess mortality of half a million – and brought a (deservedly) huge wave of criticism and unrest down on the government.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million), 1930-33 (5-6 million), and 1947 (500,000).

    That’s right - the USSR, with a level of industrial production an order of magnitude greater than the Russian Empire in the 1890s, had a famine which killed as many people as the very worst famine of late Tsarist Russia.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
     
    Incorrect. See above.

    Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing...
     
    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high. It's pretty much impossible to have a falling population in such circumstances short of becoming the Khmer Rouge.

    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine,

    Not true–there were several famines leading to WW I. There were famines BEFORE 1891. And the key to it is very simple–lack of large farming “hozyaistv”, overwhelming majority of Russia’s pre-revolutionary agriculture was built around peasant “dvor”–an economic dead-end, because majority of those “dvory” either can barely or could not at all sustain themselves, forget introduction of machinery and fertilizers. Again, read the report of Russia’s medical society from 1909 IIRC about causes of children mortality in peasant households. I don’t have Cyrillic on my keyboard at work but you can easily find it. Actually, this report reads like a horror story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Not true–there were several famines leading to WW I. There were famines BEFORE 1891.
     
    None of these - at least in the 19th century up through World War I - were nearly as bad as the one in 1891-1892 that claimed 400,000-500,000 lives. And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.

    You also didn't address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Israel Shamir
    Gentlemen, your very interesting and knowledgeable discussion mainly deals with Russia's communist past. Please pay attention to the point of my article. We live now in the middle of neo-liberal remake of the world, and that has to be stopped, in my view. Not only in Russia, but in the US and Europe, too. We hoped that it can be achieved by alt-right. Now we see it does not happen. Nice billionaires are not going to save us. That is why we should consider getting a new Stalin - in the US and Europe, who will solve the new problems in his ruthless way. I am not going to weep if Mr Soros and his friends hedge-fund-managers will meet a hard fate in a new Cheka.
    Russia's communists had to deal with their problems in a retarded and devastated Russia, while now there is a good chance to bring forth the world revolution in the most advanced states - because their ruling class became too sure of its victory.
    We have to save the world, for us and for our children - not only save Russia.

    I doubt that academic discussions about the past will solve future or present problems, and are likely often made to muddy the waters and distract. I’m not an academic, and I’m not any sort of intellectual, but I have enough background knowledge to follow the conversation, and feel pretty certain that much of it is useless to the present or future.

    Americans don’t have a history of Stalins or Hitlers. It’s foreign to us. The problem in America could be that the current immigrants, and some Americans who are descended from immigrants, have experience with totalitarianism, or still cling to a totalitarian or radical tendency. Maybe a violent, authoritarian, pro-American strongman would solve many of our problems, but I don’t see Americans going for him, or producing him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the 1932-33 famine was caused by the major land reform, collectivization.

    Collectivization was necessary to finance the industrialization, which, in turn, was necessary to survive the imminent attack from the west; in all likelihood, by the combined west (turning Germany against the UK and France was, of course, a major diplomatic success). It all needs to be viewed in this context.

    Also, collectivized rich farmers (‘kulaks’) certainly aggravated the disaster (to what extent is anyone’s guess) by rotting and burning the harvest and slaughtering their farm animals. It doesn’t necessarily excuse the authorities, but that’s part of the story anyway.

    Anyhow, my point is: a famine under ordinary/predictable circumstances is one thing, and a famine during a major socioeconomic crisis/transformation/shock in the system is another. Force majeure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  190. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over.
     
    It is becoming ridiculous. For crying out loud (instead of Broghouse and Effron) look at famines of 1891, 1892, 1897 etc., look at the structure of Russia's so called agricultural sector at that time--an unmitigated disaster.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891%E2%80%9392

    https://ibhistoryf.wikispaces.com/The+Russian+Famine+of+1891+-+1892

    Read Leo Tolstoy's "Hunger" for crying out loud. Throw away this BS meme that Russia "fed the whole world", Russia barely provided 10% of European "diet". Look at great Russian classic literature from Radishev to Nekrasov, to Gogol, to Goncharov to Tolstoy--it is all about Russian village and peasantry. By early 20th Century Russia had 10 000 000 peasant yards (hozyaistv) which COULD NOT even sustain themselves, this is about 50-70 million people who lived in a state of permanent hunger (malnutrition). Look at the history of Russian peasant obshina and ask yourself a question why by WW I more than 40% of Russian Army recruits were rejected for the health reasons. Most peasant ate meat for the first time in Russia's Navy and Army.


    Sure. And the point is that those problems were being taken care before the Bolshevik takeover.
     
    You know, each time I read this kind of stuff I begin to understand what an abyss separates meme culture and real knowledge. It doesn't matter that dozens of gubernias (sometimes as high as 24) were pretty much in the constant famine or semi-famine state for decades, I recon.

    The link you posted was written by Alex Battler, Marxist-Leninist weirdo. He may have used or misused various other sources. I pointed out how he did so.
     
    OMG. Sir, the author could be a pedophile, for all I care, look at the links at leading Russian (pre-Revolutionary) scientists, sociologists, economists--none of the Marxist-Leninist. I provided you with full work by Milyukov. Is he "misusing" the sources. Was Leo Tolstoy a Marxist?

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Terrible_Question


    I don’t think the Bolshevik “final solution” to the peasant problem (killing the smartest/most successfu
     
    BS. Kulaks were usury generators and known in obshinas as "miroedy", but here we have to come back to square one--it is difficult to communicate with people who "know" Russia's history from Solzhenitsyn's BS and RKMP. You might be, actually, stunned to learn that Prodrazverstka is not Bolshevik "invention" but existed well before Revolution. Guess why? Yes, because Russian peasantry existed constantly on the verge or in the hunger. I am not suggesting you to read Prudnikova's works but at least try to read about Russian peasantry from Russian classics literature, obviously Nekrasov's Komu Na Rusi Zhit Horosho is a good primer.

    “Was Russia significantly behind the Western powers in numerous ways? Certainly. But it was catching up rapidly before the Bolsheviks took over.”

    It is becoming ridiculous. For crying out loud (instead of Broghouse and Effron) look at famines of 1891, 1892, 1897 etc., look at the structure of Russia’s so called agricultural sector at that time–an unmitigated disaster.

    AK just said it best:

    “People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine, which caused excess mortality of half a million – and brought a (deservedly) huge wave of criticism and unrest down on the government.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million), 1930-33 (5-6 million), and 1947 (500,000).

    That’s right – the USSR, with a level of industrial production an order of magnitude greater than the Russian Empire in the 1890s, had a famine which killed as many people as the very worst famine of late Tsarist Russia.”

    Read Leo Tolstoy’s “Hunger” for crying out loud. Throw away this BS meme that Russia “fed the whole world”, Russia barely provided 10% of European “diet”.

    Activists tend to exaggerate in order to get attention for their cause.

    According to wiki, “By 1910, Russian wheat constituted 36.4% of the total world export of wheat.” That doesn’t seem like a country in the grip of chronic semi-starvation.

    Here are some data.

    Daily caloric intake in Russia 1900-1913 was 2,964. In 1960 it was 2,978. The % of calories from meat doubled (in 1997 it was only between 2,000 and 2,200).

    Russia’s caloric intake in 1900-1913 was about where France’s was in 1860. It was higher than Italy’s in 1910 (2,600).

    Yes, this is the average for the country, presumably Russia’s peasants ate more poorly than did much of its urban population (I am not sure if this is the case with its poorest workers, however). But because Russia had a large rural population the national average is probably not dramatically different from the peasant average.

    I found another source with a much lower estimate

    2,100 calories per day between 1895 and 1910 (with a drop in 1905-1906 but otherwise an upward trend, ending at about 2,550 before World War I). 2,100 is the same as modern Bolivia; 2,550 the same as modern Indonesia or Uzbekistan. I didn’t realize these were all starving countries.

    It doesn’t matter that dozens of gubernias (sometimes as high as 24) were pretty much in the constant famine or semi-famine state for decades, I recon.

    Russia’s average caloric intake doesn’t support this claim, for 1900-1913.

    BS. Kulaks were usury generators and known in obshinas as “miroedy”, but here we have to come back to square one

    Sovok propaganda, sorry. “Usury” in this context meant someone who saved surplus money (rather than, for example, spending it on alcohol) , investing in more land than he could personally farm and renting it out in order to generate additional income. It’s what peasants with higher IQs, better work ethic, and capacity to delay gratification did.

    This is how Kulaks were defined, from wiki:

    In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of “kulak household” (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[3][12]

    1.use of hired labor

    2. ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor

    3. systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities

    4. involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or “other sources of non-labor income”

    By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak. In 1930 this list was extended to include those who were renting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, or who rented land to other farmers.

    it is difficult to communicate with people who “know” Russia’s history from Solzhenitsyn’s BS and RKMP

    I “know” this from my own ancestral village in what was the Russian Empire and later the USSR, which I visit whenever I travel there, and from one of my own grandparents who grew up in that village. The village had a kulak family. The kulak was self-taught to about the 3rd grade reading level, and translated documents for his neighbors. He worked hard, sometimes even on Sundays, and never drank, which was odd for the village (maybe his father had been an alcoholic or something – who knows). Eventually and probably through the help of Stolypin’s reforms he accumulated enough capital to build a windmill, and charged the neighbors for its use. This was good for them (they no longer had to walk 5 km to another village to use its windmill) and for him. He also bought extra land and gave work to some migrating laborers who otherwise would not have had work. This all occurred under the Tsars and during NEP when the villages were more or less left alone. In the 1930s Bolshevik activists from the oblast center killed him and stole everything from his family, who were exiled.

    The kulak had also saved money to send his oldest sons to school in the oblast center and pay for rented rooms there; they managed to avoid the deportation. One became en engineer and served as an officer in the Soviet army, and was killed when retaking Crimea. The other became a physician.

    Those were kulaks. The smartest, most ambitious, and most hard-working of the peasants. Sovok reforms were reverse Darwinism of the Soviet countryside.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine,
     
    Not true--there were several famines leading to WW I. There were famines BEFORE 1891. And the key to it is very simple--lack of large farming "hozyaistv", overwhelming majority of Russia's pre-revolutionary agriculture was built around peasant "dvor"--an economic dead-end, because majority of those "dvory" either can barely or could not at all sustain themselves, forget introduction of machinery and fertilizers. Again, read the report of Russia's medical society from 1909 IIRC about causes of children mortality in peasant households. I don't have Cyrillic on my keyboard at work but you can easily find it. Actually, this report reads like a horror story.

    Not true–there were several famines leading to WW I. There were famines BEFORE 1891.

    None of these – at least in the 19th century up through World War I – were nearly as bad as the one in 1891-1892 that claimed 400,000-500,000 lives. And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.

    You also didn’t address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    You also didn’t address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.
     
    Wait a minute, I had to address famine of 1947? First time I hear this, I am writing about pre-revolutionary Russia. But since you volunteered me to address this--here it is: in 1947, my father, a shell-shocked hungry orphan (their aunt, a heroic woman, adopted 10 kids from the extended family) was studying in the rubble of a school (literally, under the skies) using old newspapers for writing, between printed lines. Sure, for the country which just finished the war in which she was basically raised to the ground, had tens of millions people lost, had a lion share of its life stock moved to Germany, had most of its machine-tractor agricultural stations destroyed it is so unusual to have shortages, hunger, even famine. Obviously, you somehow missed the fact that Western Europe, which suffered on several orders of magnitude less than USSR also faced the threat of famine in 1945-46. But who really cares, right?

    And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.
     
    Do you have a conception, a grasp of the scale of Russian Civil War? I am truly fascinated, it is like communicating with the filter which filters out the most crucial knowledge.

    I “know” this from my own ancestral village
     
    You could be surprised, but most modern Russians are two, maximum three generations removed from their ancestral villages. Last time I was in the village was July 2016--a lot of memories there too and not all of them bad.

    Those were kulaks. The smartest, most ambitious, and most hard-working of the peasants.
     
    There is an oriental proverb--no matter how many times one repeats the word sugar, it is not going to become sweet in the mouth. Again, you have scores to settle with Soviet Power, be my guest--there are many ways you can express your grievances but, please, do not try to obfuscate this whole discussion about a pre-revolutionary Russia which was pregnant with revolution pretty much all the time because of the peasant question. It was, for all Russian creative and natural genius, a backward country which from Decembrists to Russian Intelligentsia (a real one, not kreakls) to all kinds of thinkers and political figures was diagnosed with terminal illness. If not for SRs' doctrinal dullness it would have been over for Samoderzhavie in 1905. Pomeshichestvo and peasant "dvor" were Russia's main problem and tragedy. But then again, Stolypin may be also accused of being a bolshevik.

    Sovok propaganda, sorry
     
    Sure, live in your bubble. Good luck.
    , @Ivan
    Thanks for all the information you dug up, and the relevant context. Will come in handy when reading through the commie bitches.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @AP

    Not true–there were several famines leading to WW I. There were famines BEFORE 1891.
     
    None of these - at least in the 19th century up through World War I - were nearly as bad as the one in 1891-1892 that claimed 400,000-500,000 lives. And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.

    You also didn't address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.

    You also didn’t address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.

    Wait a minute, I had to address famine of 1947? First time I hear this, I am writing about pre-revolutionary Russia. But since you volunteered me to address this–here it is: in 1947, my father, a shell-shocked hungry orphan (their aunt, a heroic woman, adopted 10 kids from the extended family) was studying in the rubble of a school (literally, under the skies) using old newspapers for writing, between printed lines. Sure, for the country which just finished the war in which she was basically raised to the ground, had tens of millions people lost, had a lion share of its life stock moved to Germany, had most of its machine-tractor agricultural stations destroyed it is so unusual to have shortages, hunger, even famine. Obviously, you somehow missed the fact that Western Europe, which suffered on several orders of magnitude less than USSR also faced the threat of famine in 1945-46. But who really cares, right?

    And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.

    Do you have a conception, a grasp of the scale of Russian Civil War? I am truly fascinated, it is like communicating with the filter which filters out the most crucial knowledge.

    I “know” this from my own ancestral village

    You could be surprised, but most modern Russians are two, maximum three generations removed from their ancestral villages. Last time I was in the village was July 2016–a lot of memories there too and not all of them bad.

    Those were kulaks. The smartest, most ambitious, and most hard-working of the peasants.

    There is an oriental proverb–no matter how many times one repeats the word sugar, it is not going to become sweet in the mouth. Again, you have scores to settle with Soviet Power, be my guest–there are many ways you can express your grievances but, please, do not try to obfuscate this whole discussion about a pre-revolutionary Russia which was pregnant with revolution pretty much all the time because of the peasant question. It was, for all Russian creative and natural genius, a backward country which from Decembrists to Russian Intelligentsia (a real one, not kreakls) to all kinds of thinkers and political figures was diagnosed with terminal illness. If not for SRs’ doctrinal dullness it would have been over for Samoderzhavie in 1905. Pomeshichestvo and peasant “dvor” were Russia’s main problem and tragedy. But then again, Stolypin may be also accused of being a bolshevik.

    Sovok propaganda, sorry

    Sure, live in your bubble. Good luck.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sergey Krieger
    • Replies: @AP

    "You also didn’t address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892."

    Wait a minute, I had to address famine of 1947? First time I hear this, I am writing about pre-revolutionary Russia.
     

    Well, in addition to, in 1932-1933, having a famine ten times deadlier than the worst one of late Tsarist times, the Soviets managed to equal the worst one of Tsarist time in 1947.

    Sure, for the country which just finished the war in which she was basically raised to the ground, had tens of millions people lost, had a lion share of its life stock moved to Germany,
     
    1947 was two years after the war ended, and as AK pointed out the Soviets did manage to send a lot of food abroad. Actually they sent a lot of it to the German Nazi-voters, while half a million Soviet people starved to death.

    "And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933."

    Do you have a conception, a grasp of the scale of Russian Civil War? I am truly fascinated, it is like communicating with the filter which filters out the most crucial knowledge.
     

    Famine of 1921-1922 was caused by grain confiscation. And the Russian civil war doesn't excuse 1932-1933.

    "Those were kulaks. The smartest, most ambitious, and most hard-working of the peasants."

    There is an oriental proverb–no matter how many times one repeats the word sugar, it is not going to become sweet in the mouth
     

    Well - how do you label someone who works hard, and invests what he makes and prospers as a result of his hard work and planning so that he is better off than his neighbors who did not work as hard, did not save. Privileged? :-)

    Russia which was pregnant with revolution pretty much all the time because of the peasant question.
     
    At some point in their history most countries had a peasant question. Yet every other European country, and most Asians ones, emerged from this without a Bolshevik nightmare, genocide of native population, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Anatoly Karlin

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
     
    The Jews were exploiting poor Germans. They had it coming. /s

    Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.
     
    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine, which caused excess mortality of half a million – and brought a (deservedly) huge wave of criticism and unrest down on the government.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million), 1930-33 (5-6 million), and 1947 (500,000).

    That’s right - the USSR, with a level of industrial production an order of magnitude greater than the Russian Empire in the 1890s, had a famine which killed as many people as the very worst famine of late Tsarist Russia.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
     
    Incorrect. See above.

    Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing...
     
    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high. It's pretty much impossible to have a falling population in such circumstances short of becoming the Khmer Rouge.

    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high.

    And why did this mortality rate fall, wink-wink? There was supposed to be some impetus for this “demographic transition”–nothing in universe happens “just because”. I wonder if a revolutionary (in fact, unprecedented in history) massive education of population had anything to do with it? It is called “modernization”.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million)

    USSR didn’t exist then, not until end of December 1922. And yes, there was a war. War and famine are two sides of the same coin, they usually go together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    And why did this mortality rate fall, wink-wink?
     
    It only fell substantially after 1940. Refer to the graph I posted here.

    Or this one of life expectancy as a whole: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/ns_r00/img/graf4_1.gif

    Coupled with a young population and a still high birthrate, that almost inevitably translated into population growth.

    I wonder if a revolutionary (in fact, unprecedented in history) massive education of population had anything to do with it?
     
    Primary enrollment was around 80% in the last years of Imperial Russia, and the last cohort to undergo its schooling was more literate than the generation that received their schooling in the 1920s (according to Krupskaya at the 1927 party congress - take it up with her).

    There was absolutely nothing unprecedented about it. The foundations for the literacy surge had been laid under Imperial Russia, the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.

    USSR didn’t exist then, not until end of December 1922.
     
    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Anatoly Karlin

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
     
    The Jews were exploiting poor Germans. They had it coming. /s

    Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.
     
    People who know history know the worst late Imperial Russian famine was the 1891-92 Volga famine, which caused excess mortality of half a million – and brought a (deservedly) huge wave of criticism and unrest down on the government.

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million), 1930-33 (5-6 million), and 1947 (500,000).

    That’s right - the USSR, with a level of industrial production an order of magnitude greater than the Russian Empire in the 1890s, had a famine which killed as many people as the very worst famine of late Tsarist Russia.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
     
    Incorrect. See above.

    Pre WW2 population of USSR was around 200 million which means despite all losses population was rapidly growing...
     
    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high. It's pretty much impossible to have a falling population in such circumstances short of becoming the Khmer Rouge.

    Regarding famines, I believe Andrei explained everything very well. While there is some Krieger in me, my real surname is Russian one. My father family comes from Orel region peasant stock. So, he told me that out of 10 kids his grandmother had only 5 survived to adulthood. I guess those deaths did not come from overeating and they all happened before revolution. I suspect due to mulnutrition lots of kids did not make it. I notice you are very much concerned with ethnic purity. I guess such people as Alexander Vasiliievich Souvorov, Pushkin, Lermontov, Bagration, Blok and many other would not make it to your list.

    Read More
    • Troll: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I notice you are very much concerned with ethnic purity.
     
    I am 1/4 Dagestani.

    Done replying to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @AP

    Those were as one guy already pointed kulaks/ miroedi who exploited poor peasants.
     
    And if he believes that, he is a fool; otherwise, he is a liar. Some of us have roots in Soviet villages and know what happened there.

    Nobody intentionally starved peasants. Mistakes were made , but unlike previous starvation and if you kow history you should also know that starvation was regular occurrence in Russia under Czars.
     
    No famine under the Tsars was as bad as the ones in the early 20s and early 30s. The famine of 1891 left half a million dead. The one in 1921-1922 left 5 million dead (mostly in the Volga region), and 1932-1933 5.5 to 7 million dead (in the Volga region and Ukraine). The Soviet ones killed 10 times more people.

    Starvation of 30′s was the last such occurrence which would have never happened again under peace time in USSR.
     
    Famines periodically occurred all over the world. Somehow this problem wasn't solved outside the USSR with collectivization involving an artificial famine ten times worse than the natural ones that were ended.

    Regarding crashing demographic. Demography was doing just fine. Russian demography was crashed by Liberal Capitalistic
     
    Russia had the highest fertility rate in the world in 1900 - 7.5 children per woman. It slowed down to about 5 at the time of the Revolution but began a collapse in the mid 1920s.

    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/cf124.f2.1.gif

    If not for Bolshevism there would be no less than 200 million Russians now, though more likely 250-300 million. Bolshevism was the best thing ever for the USA, it eliminated a potential long-term threat.

    Now look at the trend that all white European countries have one common sign, inability of core population to basically replace itself under modern Capitalism.
     
    The problem isn't capitalism but secularism. Fertility collapses when people stop being religious. Here is Quebec's birth rate:

    https://plot.ly/~gazettedata/22/the-birthrate-in-quebec-since-1900.png

    Quebec was a very religious country until its "quiet revolution" in the early 1960s. Quebec did not suddenly discover capitalism in the 1960s, it just lost God.

    Do you really think having 7 kids on average was a good sign? Mortality was very high and people only had chance to survive old years by having lots of kids. I also look ived in China to see outcomes of overpopulation. Were it not for completely crashed birth rates since 1992 RF and USSR in case of survival would be doing just fine. Most probably with RF hitting 180 millionand USSR around 400 million at least. There were 300 million of us in 1991. More than enough. You really don’t want to go China and India way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zzz
    China or India can't happen in Russia. You need extensive life support system to survive. It always have less people then rest of Europe.
    , @AP

    Do you really think having 7 kids on average was a good sign?
     
    In a country the size of Russia it was a great sign. Russia had room for at least 400 million Russians if not more. It is much bigger than China or India.

    Were it not for completely crashed birth rates since 1992 RF and USSR in case of survival would be doing just fine.
     
    If Bolsheviks hadn't crashed Russia's birth rate, Russia could have absorbed 90s-style demographic damage.

    There were 300 million of us in 1991.
     
    Not Russians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Alden says:
    @Israel Shamir
    No, we had a washing machine. We also had a bath tub and a shower - very usual in Russia, but very rare in England (no showers) and France (no bathtubs) of sixties

    So your family was in the top 1 percent. I have English relatives and its very true that washing machines, and running water was not universal in England or France at the time. There were still plenty of outhouses in rural areas of France and England in 1960.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia at the time was beginning to undergo the demographic transition, in which mortality rates fall while fertility remain high.
     
    And why did this mortality rate fall, wink-wink? There was supposed to be some impetus for this "demographic transition"--nothing in universe happens "just because". I wonder if a revolutionary (in fact, unprecedented in history) massive education of population had anything to do with it? It is called "modernization".

    Under the USSR, there were three big famines: 1918-1922 (~10 million)
     
    USSR didn't exist then, not until end of December 1922. And yes, there was a war. War and famine are two sides of the same coin, they usually go together.

    And why did this mortality rate fall, wink-wink?

    It only fell substantially after 1940. Refer to the graph I posted here.

    Or this one of life expectancy as a whole:

    Coupled with a young population and a still high birthrate, that almost inevitably translated into population growth.

    I wonder if a revolutionary (in fact, unprecedented in history) massive education of population had anything to do with it?

    Primary enrollment was around 80% in the last years of Imperial Russia, and the last cohort to undergo its schooling was more literate than the generation that received their schooling in the 1920s (according to Krupskaya at the 1927 party congress – take it up with her).

    There was absolutely nothing unprecedented about it. The foundations for the literacy surge had been laid under Imperial Russia, the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.

    USSR didn’t exist then, not until end of December 1922.

    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    One point of clarification on the famine question:

    AP is correct that there were few famines in late Imperial Russia - indeed, the 1891-92 one was the only major one. He is however a bit too sanguine on living standards. Imperial Russia was characterized by chronic malnutrition (what you mistakenly call famines), which translated into height stunting and high infant mortality rates. However, this is the case for virtually all pre-industrial economies (for instance, malnutrition is still prevalent in the Indian subcontinent and Sub-Saharan Africa). Russian/Soviet nutritional standards (outside famine years) did improve during the 1920s and 1930s relative to the late Tsarism, but they were quite modest; the real leaps came after 1950.

    There are no grounds however for believing that this would not have occured and possible faster if there had been no USSR.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.
     
    I can not discuss seriously such "interpretations", even despite a great effort on educating population during 19th and 20th centuries. Education, BTW, involves much more than basic literacy. By early 1930s STEM in Soviet public schools was one of the best in the world, by 1950s it became THE BEST in the world and while incorporating some classic Russian educational tradition, it was primarily developed by whatever they are called now (Bolsheviks, Stalinists whatever). It is really difficult to explain the difference in level of knowledge and education which required working in the field and operating lathe or mill in the industrial plant--those are two different universes.

    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.
     
    No, famine in 1947 was not "as bad" as in 1930-33.

    http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/the-forgotten-famine-of-1946-1948/

    You see, I can also type letters in Google or Yahoo search.

    Moreover, beginning in July 1946, famine once again gripped the Soviet Union. By the time it receded in late 1948, around 1,200,000 people had died, including somewhere between five and eight percent of the population of Moldova, at the time part of the USSR. with a series of publications by academics like Michael Ellmann, Nicholas Ganson and Stephen G. Wheatcroft on the nature, course and cause of the famine. Surprisingly, a number of these authors seek to defend Stalinist agricultural policy by arguing that the famine was largely triggered by environmental circumstances. But a plethora of evidence proves the pivotal role played by communist policy and ideology.

    So, if we are to play with numbers 1.2 (alleged) millions is more than 4 times less than 5-6 millions starved in 1930-33. So, clarification of "as bad" is bad, because it is untrue. But in the end, I don't have an ability to build the bridge (I am much older than you) which will be able to convey a scale of an effort and both tragedy and triumph in being able to endure what USSR/Russia endured in 20th and 21st centuries, all of it being accomplished largely thanks to those damn "communists". Everything what today's Russia has--from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts--this all is heritage of those damn "bolsheviks". Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor. Czarist Russia would have gone at the seams trying to accomplish that. Wait, she did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Sergey Krieger
    Regarding famines, I believe Andrei explained everything very well. While there is some Krieger in me, my real surname is Russian one. My father family comes from Orel region peasant stock. So, he told me that out of 10 kids his grandmother had only 5 survived to adulthood. I guess those deaths did not come from overeating and they all happened before revolution. I suspect due to mulnutrition lots of kids did not make it. I notice you are very much concerned with ethnic purity. I guess such people as Alexander Vasiliievich Souvorov, Pushkin, Lermontov, Bagration, Blok and many other would not make it to your list.

    I notice you are very much concerned with ethnic purity.

    I am 1/4 Dagestani.

    Done replying to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    No problem. I already got who I am dealing with.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    I am 1/4 Dagestani.
     
    And Voldemort was 1/2 muggle. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Anatoly Karlin

    And why did this mortality rate fall, wink-wink?
     
    It only fell substantially after 1940. Refer to the graph I posted here.

    Or this one of life expectancy as a whole: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/ns_r00/img/graf4_1.gif

    Coupled with a young population and a still high birthrate, that almost inevitably translated into population growth.

    I wonder if a revolutionary (in fact, unprecedented in history) massive education of population had anything to do with it?
     
    Primary enrollment was around 80% in the last years of Imperial Russia, and the last cohort to undergo its schooling was more literate than the generation that received their schooling in the 1920s (according to Krupskaya at the 1927 party congress - take it up with her).

    There was absolutely nothing unprecedented about it. The foundations for the literacy surge had been laid under Imperial Russia, the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.

    USSR didn’t exist then, not until end of December 1922.
     
    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.

    One point of clarification on the famine question:

    AP is correct that there were few famines in late Imperial Russia – indeed, the 1891-92 one was the only major one. He is however a bit too sanguine on living standards. Imperial Russia was characterized by chronic malnutrition (what you mistakenly call famines), which translated into height stunting and high infant mortality rates. However, this is the case for virtually all pre-industrial economies (for instance, malnutrition is still prevalent in the Indian subcontinent and Sub-Saharan Africa). Russian/Soviet nutritional standards (outside famine years) did improve during the 1920s and 1930s relative to the late Tsarism, but they were quite modest; the real leaps came after 1950.

    There are no grounds however for believing that this would not have occured and possible faster if there had been no USSR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. So your family was in the top 1 percent.

    I never was in a top 1%, or even 10%, but we, certainly, had access to shower already in 1960s (granted at that time in communal apartments) and once we got separate flat in Sevastopol in 1970 we had own shower and bath and good ol’ washing machine named Riga–most people in cities lived like that of even better, some, of course, worse. Our vacuum cleaner was of Raketa fame, from 1960s and we used transformer to run it on 220 because in 1950s 127 V was common Soviet voltage. Don’t remember when it went 220 V–sometime in 1960s. You also could be interested in knowing that Soviet Union produced massive number of TV sets and, in fact, pioneered Satellite TV with first ever Orbit system. Every household in 1960s had at least one TV and radio. Every. But then again, explaining this to Westerner whose range is limited by several memes, like Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak (in the best case scenario) some other Cold War ideologems, is sometimes an exercise in futility, because, you know, most westerners know Soviet Russia better than Russians. I would suggest you seek out an excellent book by Whitman Bassow titled “The Moscow Correspondent”, he explains the scale of loads of shit Western “free” media dumped on their western consumers about USSR. But then again, after I hear some NBC “Russian scholar” comments during opening ceremony of Winter Olympics in Sochi–I am not surprised with anything. Life proved and continues to prove this my attitude to be totally reasonable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Yes, you must have been at least 10% or you are suffering from nostalgia for lost youth.

    1956 - less than 5% of city people had hot running water
    - 66% had no running water

    1975 - 20% of state city housing lacked running water and plumbing
    50% did not have hot water

    1977 in Novosibirsk province
    - 78% of houses had no running water
    - 95% of houses lacked hot water
    - 89% wend w/o indoor plumbing
    - 90% went w/o central heat
    - 96% had no telephones in rural areas

    1985 - 10% rural ones had no electricity

    Communal apartments were standard housing for city dwellers into the 1960s. This meant for most families being crammed into one room and sharing kitchen, toilet and bathtub with several other families. In 1970th about 1/4 to 1/3 leaved in such conditions.

    Daily Life in the Soviet Union, Katherine Bliss Eaton
    https://books.google.com/books?id=VVFuYN8TS5AC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=soviet+union+bathrooms+in+1960's&source=bl&ots=x45vq_ejmg&sig=26JCfzf2nbE4jIhzw3yldbMQQlg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkn7un09nTAhWHyoMKHXr0AJUQ6AEIXDAO#v=onepage&q=soviet%20union%20bathrooms%20in%201960's&f=false

    Data per 100 families or households
    TV sets: 32/100 (1965) 95/100 (1981)
    Tape recorders: 4/100 (1965) 33/100 (1981)
    Refrigerators: 17/100 (1965)
    Washing machines: 33/100 (1965) 78/100 (1981)
    Vacuum cleaners: 11/100 (1965) 33/100 (1981)

    In 1985 out of 100 families (rural or urban) nearly 99 had TV and radio sets, 92 had fridges, 72 had washing machines. In urban areas 1/10 had 2 TV sets.

    Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era, Natalya Chernyshova
    https://books.google.com/books?id=vF5Cpij6550C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=washing+machine+TV+sets+in+soviet+union&source=bl&ots=okRouger2p&sig=_sp4xJFK4tCpv_e1bbvULJM99as&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV0-Lo19nTAhXGNiYKHU1eDiAQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=washing%20machine%20TV%20sets%20in%20soviet%20union&f=false

    , @OilcanFloyd
    I visited Leningrad and some of the surrounding areas in June 1990, and it wasn't exactly what I expected. Granted, I only saw a tiny part of the SU for a short time, and I was part of a tour group, so my experiences probably don't mean much. I was also a teenager, with little knowledge about the SU/Russia and its history.

    What I saw was obviously quite a bit less well-off than the West, but it was definitely livable. I imagine it to be quite a bit like the U.S. of the 30s to 50s. It was kind of drab and it looked fairly polluted, kind of like I would imagine an industrial area of the U.S. mid-century. The people also didn't seem desperate (like some of the Russians I met a year or so later in a neighboring country who were selling anything for $5) or like zombies fearing for their lives.

    The interesting thing is that a cab driver and guy who was selling things to obvious tourists both said that they look forward to the future. I don't remember their exact words, but I took it as meaning that they look forward to another system. Either they were hoping that I would say something political so they could arrest me, or they were sincere. I don't know, since I wasn't really political. If they were sincere, I wonder why the western intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the fall of the system?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Anatoly Karlin

    And why did this mortality rate fall, wink-wink?
     
    It only fell substantially after 1940. Refer to the graph I posted here.

    Or this one of life expectancy as a whole: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/ns_r00/img/graf4_1.gif

    Coupled with a young population and a still high birthrate, that almost inevitably translated into population growth.

    I wonder if a revolutionary (in fact, unprecedented in history) massive education of population had anything to do with it?
     
    Primary enrollment was around 80% in the last years of Imperial Russia, and the last cohort to undergo its schooling was more literate than the generation that received their schooling in the 1920s (according to Krupskaya at the 1927 party congress - take it up with her).

    There was absolutely nothing unprecedented about it. The foundations for the literacy surge had been laid under Imperial Russia, the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.

    USSR didn’t exist then, not until end of December 1922.
     
    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.

    the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.

    I can not discuss seriously such “interpretations”, even despite a great effort on educating population during 19th and 20th centuries. Education, BTW, involves much more than basic literacy. By early 1930s STEM in Soviet public schools was one of the best in the world, by 1950s it became THE BEST in the world and while incorporating some classic Russian educational tradition, it was primarily developed by whatever they are called now (Bolsheviks, Stalinists whatever). It is really difficult to explain the difference in level of knowledge and education which required working in the field and operating lathe or mill in the industrial plant–those are two different universes.

    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.

    No, famine in 1947 was not “as bad” as in 1930-33.

    http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/the-forgotten-famine-of-1946-1948/

    You see, I can also type letters in Google or Yahoo search.

    Moreover, beginning in July 1946, famine once again gripped the Soviet Union. By the time it receded in late 1948, around 1,200,000 people had died, including somewhere between five and eight percent of the population of Moldova, at the time part of the USSR. with a series of publications by academics like Michael Ellmann, Nicholas Ganson and Stephen G. Wheatcroft on the nature, course and cause of the famine. Surprisingly, a number of these authors seek to defend Stalinist agricultural policy by arguing that the famine was largely triggered by environmental circumstances. But a plethora of evidence proves the pivotal role played by communist policy and ideology.

    So, if we are to play with numbers 1.2 (alleged) millions is more than 4 times less than 5-6 millions starved in 1930-33. So, clarification of “as bad” is bad, because it is untrue. But in the end, I don’t have an ability to build the bridge (I am much older than you) which will be able to convey a scale of an effort and both tragedy and triumph in being able to endure what USSR/Russia endured in 20th and 21st centuries, all of it being accomplished largely thanks to those damn “communists”. Everything what today’s Russia has–from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts–this all is heritage of those damn “bolsheviks”. Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor. Czarist Russia would have gone at the seams trying to accomplish that. Wait, she did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I am sorry to interfer, Andrei, but it is extremely well written post. As always pleasure to read.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    No, famine in 1947 was not “as bad” as in 1930-33.
     
    I phrased that incorrectly - I meant the 1947 famine was as bad as the 1891-92 one. (That is, more than 50 years later. Because the USSR was sending grain to East Germany and Poland. What a wonderful gift from Stalin to the Russian people for victory in WW2).

    I am using the 500,000 deaths figure because that is the excess mortality according to demographic statistics.

    Everything what today’s Russia has–from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts–this all is heritage of those damn “bolsheviks”.
     
    Well yes, when you pour 10-15% of GDP (possibly higher) into the military for decades on end, you will get something out of that.

    (Though in the end, the Soviet leadership didn't use it, but sold their country for a pair of jeans. And I'm supposed to be the Soviet hater, for some reason).

    Museums, fine arts, etc. - all Silver Age Russian heritage. For instance, the only artistic style of any significance produced in the USSR was soc-realism. That was of course thanks to the communists having exiled (philosopher's ship) and in some cases outright murdered strands of art, culture, literature, and even science (!) that went against Marxist-Leninist principles.

    Let's also stop with this worship of the Soviet education system. You could do this when you had to only anecdote to rely upon, but there are international standardized tests now, and Russians do not perform exceptionally well (by European/North American standards) on them.
    , @OilcanFloyd

    Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor.
     
    Both the U.S. and the SU benefited heavily from German expertise during and after WWII. I don't think anyone needs a lesson on the development and spread of nuclear technology or misslie and aerospace technology.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Anatoly Karlin

    I notice you are very much concerned with ethnic purity.
     
    I am 1/4 Dagestani.

    Done replying to you.

    No problem. I already got who I am dealing with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Andrei Martyanov

    the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.
     
    I can not discuss seriously such "interpretations", even despite a great effort on educating population during 19th and 20th centuries. Education, BTW, involves much more than basic literacy. By early 1930s STEM in Soviet public schools was one of the best in the world, by 1950s it became THE BEST in the world and while incorporating some classic Russian educational tradition, it was primarily developed by whatever they are called now (Bolsheviks, Stalinists whatever). It is really difficult to explain the difference in level of knowledge and education which required working in the field and operating lathe or mill in the industrial plant--those are two different universes.

    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.
     
    No, famine in 1947 was not "as bad" as in 1930-33.

    http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/the-forgotten-famine-of-1946-1948/

    You see, I can also type letters in Google or Yahoo search.

    Moreover, beginning in July 1946, famine once again gripped the Soviet Union. By the time it receded in late 1948, around 1,200,000 people had died, including somewhere between five and eight percent of the population of Moldova, at the time part of the USSR. with a series of publications by academics like Michael Ellmann, Nicholas Ganson and Stephen G. Wheatcroft on the nature, course and cause of the famine. Surprisingly, a number of these authors seek to defend Stalinist agricultural policy by arguing that the famine was largely triggered by environmental circumstances. But a plethora of evidence proves the pivotal role played by communist policy and ideology.

    So, if we are to play with numbers 1.2 (alleged) millions is more than 4 times less than 5-6 millions starved in 1930-33. So, clarification of "as bad" is bad, because it is untrue. But in the end, I don't have an ability to build the bridge (I am much older than you) which will be able to convey a scale of an effort and both tragedy and triumph in being able to endure what USSR/Russia endured in 20th and 21st centuries, all of it being accomplished largely thanks to those damn "communists". Everything what today's Russia has--from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts--this all is heritage of those damn "bolsheviks". Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor. Czarist Russia would have gone at the seams trying to accomplish that. Wait, she did.

    I am sorry to interfer, Andrei, but it is extremely well written post. As always pleasure to read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Zzz says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Do you really think having 7 kids on average was a good sign? Mortality was very high and people only had chance to survive old years by having lots of kids. I also look ived in China to see outcomes of overpopulation. Were it not for completely crashed birth rates since 1992 RF and USSR in case of survival would be doing just fine. Most probably with RF hitting 180 millionand USSR around 400 million at least. There were 300 million of us in 1991. More than enough. You really don't want to go China and India way.

    China or India can’t happen in Russia. You need extensive life support system to survive. It always have less people then rest of Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Andrei Martyanov

    the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.
     
    I can not discuss seriously such "interpretations", even despite a great effort on educating population during 19th and 20th centuries. Education, BTW, involves much more than basic literacy. By early 1930s STEM in Soviet public schools was one of the best in the world, by 1950s it became THE BEST in the world and while incorporating some classic Russian educational tradition, it was primarily developed by whatever they are called now (Bolsheviks, Stalinists whatever). It is really difficult to explain the difference in level of knowledge and education which required working in the field and operating lathe or mill in the industrial plant--those are two different universes.

    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.
     
    No, famine in 1947 was not "as bad" as in 1930-33.

    http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/the-forgotten-famine-of-1946-1948/

    You see, I can also type letters in Google or Yahoo search.

    Moreover, beginning in July 1946, famine once again gripped the Soviet Union. By the time it receded in late 1948, around 1,200,000 people had died, including somewhere between five and eight percent of the population of Moldova, at the time part of the USSR. with a series of publications by academics like Michael Ellmann, Nicholas Ganson and Stephen G. Wheatcroft on the nature, course and cause of the famine. Surprisingly, a number of these authors seek to defend Stalinist agricultural policy by arguing that the famine was largely triggered by environmental circumstances. But a plethora of evidence proves the pivotal role played by communist policy and ideology.

    So, if we are to play with numbers 1.2 (alleged) millions is more than 4 times less than 5-6 millions starved in 1930-33. So, clarification of "as bad" is bad, because it is untrue. But in the end, I don't have an ability to build the bridge (I am much older than you) which will be able to convey a scale of an effort and both tragedy and triumph in being able to endure what USSR/Russia endured in 20th and 21st centuries, all of it being accomplished largely thanks to those damn "communists". Everything what today's Russia has--from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts--this all is heritage of those damn "bolsheviks". Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor. Czarist Russia would have gone at the seams trying to accomplish that. Wait, she did.

    No, famine in 1947 was not “as bad” as in 1930-33.

    I phrased that incorrectly – I meant the 1947 famine was as bad as the 1891-92 one. (That is, more than 50 years later. Because the USSR was sending grain to East Germany and Poland. What a wonderful gift from Stalin to the Russian people for victory in WW2).

    I am using the 500,000 deaths figure because that is the excess mortality according to demographic statistics.

    Everything what today’s Russia has–from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts–this all is heritage of those damn “bolsheviks”.

    Well yes, when you pour 10-15% of GDP (possibly higher) into the military for decades on end, you will get something out of that.

    (Though in the end, the Soviet leadership didn’t use it, but sold their country for a pair of jeans. And I’m supposed to be the Soviet hater, for some reason).

    Museums, fine arts, etc. – all Silver Age Russian heritage. For instance, the only artistic style of any significance produced in the USSR was soc-realism. That was of course thanks to the communists having exiled (philosopher’s ship) and in some cases outright murdered strands of art, culture, literature, and even science (!) that went against Marxist-Leninist principles.

    Let’s also stop with this worship of the Soviet education system. You could do this when you had to only anecdote to rely upon, but there are international standardized tests now, and Russians do not perform exceptionally well (by European/North American standards) on them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Museums, fine arts, etc. – all Silver Age Russian heritage.
     
    Ah, yes--now I recall that it was a tradition of Russian peasantry, after 12 hours in the filed for themselves and then another 6-7 hours for batrachestvo to indulge in reading Maximilian Voloshin or, what the hell, jump on metro and get to see show in Bolshoy or Mariinka. This was happening for centuries, after all, serfdom created all necessary conditions for overwhelming majority of Russians to attend to fine arts, that is in those rare moments when they were not solving differential equations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. but there are international standardized tests now

    Really. So Russia is now Soviet Union? First time I hear this. I can provide you with scans of Kholmogorov’s math or Scanavi’s and Peryshkin Phisics from public schools, then we may talk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Really. So Russia is now Soviet Union?
     
    The Russian school system is largely the Soviet system. It's not like it became totally different in 1992.

    TIMSS 1999 (one of the earliest reports) - https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99i_Math_1.pdf

    Russia performs somewhat better on Math than the US and UK, but same as Canada and Australia, and worse than Netherlands, all the developed East Asian countries.

    Note that TIMSS, with its more formal academic structure, is tailored to Russia's strengths, whereas Russia does relatively worse on PISA, where questions are given in a more real life context.

    with scans of Kholmogorov’s math or Scanavi’s and Peryshkin Phisics
     
    I am very familiar with Skanavi.

    The more - indeed, only - relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. utu says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    So your family was in the top 1 percent.
     
    I never was in a top 1%, or even 10%, but we, certainly, had access to shower already in 1960s (granted at that time in communal apartments) and once we got separate flat in Sevastopol in 1970 we had own shower and bath and good ol' washing machine named Riga--most people in cities lived like that of even better, some, of course, worse. Our vacuum cleaner was of Raketa fame, from 1960s and we used transformer to run it on 220 because in 1950s 127 V was common Soviet voltage. Don't remember when it went 220 V--sometime in 1960s. You also could be interested in knowing that Soviet Union produced massive number of TV sets and, in fact, pioneered Satellite TV with first ever Orbit system. Every household in 1960s had at least one TV and radio. Every. But then again, explaining this to Westerner whose range is limited by several memes, like Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak (in the best case scenario) some other Cold War ideologems, is sometimes an exercise in futility, because, you know, most westerners know Soviet Russia better than Russians. I would suggest you seek out an excellent book by Whitman Bassow titled "The Moscow Correspondent", he explains the scale of loads of shit Western "free" media dumped on their western consumers about USSR. But then again, after I hear some NBC "Russian scholar" comments during opening ceremony of Winter Olympics in Sochi--I am not surprised with anything. Life proved and continues to prove this my attitude to be totally reasonable.

    Yes, you must have been at least 10% or you are suffering from nostalgia for lost youth.

    1956 – less than 5% of city people had hot running water
    – 66% had no running water

    1975 – 20% of state city housing lacked running water and plumbing
    50% did not have hot water

    1977 in Novosibirsk province
    – 78% of houses had no running water
    – 95% of houses lacked hot water
    – 89% wend w/o indoor plumbing
    – 90% went w/o central heat
    – 96% had no telephones in rural areas

    1985 – 10% rural ones had no electricity

    Communal apartments were standard housing for city dwellers into the 1960s. This meant for most families being crammed into one room and sharing kitchen, toilet and bathtub with several other families. In 1970th about 1/4 to 1/3 leaved in such conditions.

    Daily Life in the Soviet Union, Katherine Bliss Eaton

    https://books.google.com/books?id=VVFuYN8TS5AC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=soviet+union+bathrooms+in+1960′s&source=bl&ots=x45vq_ejmg&sig=26JCfzf2nbE4jIhzw3yldbMQQlg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkn7un09nTAhWHyoMKHXr0AJUQ6AEIXDAO#v=onepage&q=soviet%20union%20bathrooms%20in%201960′s&f=false

    Data per 100 families or households
    TV sets: 32/100 (1965) 95/100 (1981)
    Tape recorders: 4/100 (1965) 33/100 (1981)
    Refrigerators: 17/100 (1965)
    Washing machines: 33/100 (1965) 78/100 (1981)
    Vacuum cleaners: 11/100 (1965) 33/100 (1981)

    In 1985 out of 100 families (rural or urban) nearly 99 had TV and radio sets, 92 had fridges, 72 had washing machines. In urban areas 1/10 had 2 TV sets.

    Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era, Natalya Chernyshova

    https://books.google.com/books?id=vF5Cpij6550C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=washing+machine+TV+sets+in+soviet+union&source=bl&ots=okRouger2p&sig=_sp4xJFK4tCpv_e1bbvULJM99as&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV0-Lo19nTAhXGNiYKHU1eDiAQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=washing%20machine%20TV%20sets%20in%20soviet%20union&f=false

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    But look on the bright side, utu: They had more the lethal vodka. That in itself should be worth a few million dead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Andrei Martyanov

    So your family was in the top 1 percent.
     
    I never was in a top 1%, or even 10%, but we, certainly, had access to shower already in 1960s (granted at that time in communal apartments) and once we got separate flat in Sevastopol in 1970 we had own shower and bath and good ol' washing machine named Riga--most people in cities lived like that of even better, some, of course, worse. Our vacuum cleaner was of Raketa fame, from 1960s and we used transformer to run it on 220 because in 1950s 127 V was common Soviet voltage. Don't remember when it went 220 V--sometime in 1960s. You also could be interested in knowing that Soviet Union produced massive number of TV sets and, in fact, pioneered Satellite TV with first ever Orbit system. Every household in 1960s had at least one TV and radio. Every. But then again, explaining this to Westerner whose range is limited by several memes, like Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak (in the best case scenario) some other Cold War ideologems, is sometimes an exercise in futility, because, you know, most westerners know Soviet Russia better than Russians. I would suggest you seek out an excellent book by Whitman Bassow titled "The Moscow Correspondent", he explains the scale of loads of shit Western "free" media dumped on their western consumers about USSR. But then again, after I hear some NBC "Russian scholar" comments during opening ceremony of Winter Olympics in Sochi--I am not surprised with anything. Life proved and continues to prove this my attitude to be totally reasonable.

    I visited Leningrad and some of the surrounding areas in June 1990, and it wasn’t exactly what I expected. Granted, I only saw a tiny part of the SU for a short time, and I was part of a tour group, so my experiences probably don’t mean much. I was also a teenager, with little knowledge about the SU/Russia and its history.

    What I saw was obviously quite a bit less well-off than the West, but it was definitely livable. I imagine it to be quite a bit like the U.S. of the 30s to 50s. It was kind of drab and it looked fairly polluted, kind of like I would imagine an industrial area of the U.S. mid-century. The people also didn’t seem desperate (like some of the Russians I met a year or so later in a neighboring country who were selling anything for $5) or like zombies fearing for their lives.

    The interesting thing is that a cab driver and guy who was selling things to obvious tourists both said that they look forward to the future. I don’t remember their exact words, but I took it as meaning that they look forward to another system. Either they were hoping that I would say something political so they could arrest me, or they were sincere. I don’t know, since I wasn’t really political. If they were sincere, I wonder why the western intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the fall of the system?

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    I don’t remember their exact words, but I took it as meaning that they look forward to another system.
     
    In 1990 they looked forward to another system, but already in 1994 a plurality wanted their old system back. And today it's a majority: in 2015 55% would prefer "A system based on government planning and distribution" vs 24% choosing "A system based on private property and market forces".

    http://www.levada.ru/en/2015/04/06/citizens-and-the-state/
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    What was committed against Russia (USSR) and Russians in 1990s is nothing short of genocide. Many people who inspired that are still around. RKMP (Russia Which We Lost, meaning pre-Revolutionary Russia, after Govorukhin's famous lubok) is a sort of mental disorder for many since they will have to find a justification to a dismantling a country in which, while by no means over-prosperous, normal life was possible through the sequence of the reforms which would eventually abolish communism but will retain the best features of Soviet system. No, at issue was an immense heritage of Soviet Union, even Wall Street Journal (I have article somewhere in my archives) in 1990s compared ерут current Russian "elite" to the flock of crows feeding of the carcass of an elephant. Funny, but same Govorukhin was forced (by his consciousness) to make a sequel to RKMP--Great Criminal Revolution In Russia.

    wonder why the western intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the fall of the system?
     
    They never knew Russia to start with (today it is even worse and is getting worse every day) plus, who would have thought that high betrayal would bear such fruits. From imbecile Gorbachov, to alcoholic low life power hungry Yeltsin to, probably turned, Yakovlev--I guess that is what it took. But communist idea was pretty much dead by early 1970s. You know why? Because Russians started to live not too badly--first time in Russian history. Personal cars, TVs, Sochi and Crimea vacations, free flats, free superb education, Aeroflot--hey, life was good!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Are we given a choice other than rotten cowards or venal traitors?
     
    yes, Ron Paul was just such a choice. Sure, they cheated him and used every underhanded device to destroy his candidacy, but I remember being appalled at how few people (white or otherwise) had any interest in his message. I was one of the enthusiasts, but few people (white or otherwise) I knew were on board- (in spite of my best efforts, although I'm sure I did convince a few to take a second look). For the gals, he was too old and thin and whiney sounding. For a lot of (white) men I knew/know, he just didn't resonate with their agendas. White liberals called him a 'white supremacist', because he supported borders and the Constitution, and presumably equal treatment- which mean no more Affirmative Action. Conservatives and Christians didn't seem to like him because he wasn't rabidly against abortion or speaking of Jesus or 'Israel' like Dubya did. It was all about their narrow agendas, and 'what good is he going to do for me personally'?

    (most of the people working at rat holes like the Dept. of Education or Energy or the CIA and other organizations that Paul wanted to do away with- are white. I remember being at a Ron Paul rally and some white women tried to run some of us over, shouting obscenities from her car window. I figured she probably "worked" at the Dept. of Education or something)

    Look at why John McCain keeps getting elected as the Arizona Senator- because he promises to bring home more lucre / slop in the trough - as a senior Senator - to the venal, white Republican voters of Arizona.

    Lindsey Graham gets elected because the feckless imbeciles in South Carolina thinks this pole-smoking war pig is going to force the return of Jesus and give them their rapture- by augmenting the genocide of the Palestinians. I kid you not.

    we have much to lament from the ranks of our own, is all I'm saying. Sure, it's the Jews who've managed to wrest control of our civilization from us, and are using its institutions (and immigration and blacks, etc..) to destroy us, but all of that power was handed to them by Western ancestral leaders who borrowed shekels to kill rival monarchs in war after war. The Jews would have no power over us were it not for the eternal folly of our own leaders like Woodrow Wilson and FDR and Bush and Clinton and Trump and the sheople who follow them.


    You can blame the white upper class that finances these cretins, but don’t blame all whites.
     
    I certainly don't blame all whites Seamus, but if we're going to set our house in order, then we're going to have to look in a mirror. I've tried to act as a defender of the American people from time to time, as I don't consider the average middle or working class American as a vile war mongering menace to the rest of the planet, but then someone will point out the Republican voters of Arizona, and I'm left speechless. There's simply no defense of an American (or anyone else) that would pull the lever for a man like John McCain. imho

    but then someone will point out the Republican voters of Arizona, and I’m left speechless.

    PTI, but I just can’t imagine you ever becoming speechless, Rurik.

    All joking aside, I’m glad to see your thinking has evolved somewhat on this topic. Here’s a previous exchange of ours:

    geokat62 – Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons’ preferred candidate?

    Rurik – because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for ‘Israel’ and make lurid promises of everlasting ‘rapture’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey Geo,

    never an interruption, always a pleasure!

    yes, I try always to evolve and stay open minded. I'm here to learn and often I'll toss out ideas just to see them ravaged so as to discover the error in them

    and I see you fighting the good fight here Sir, so kudos.

    as for Americans, they're just hopelessly deluded and lied to and yes, too often bovine and uncurious, but their hearts on the whole are good, and if they ever really understood the nature of their government and how evil it is, I think they'd rise up. In fact the way I see it, is the American people did rise up against the war (hag) and the machine (Fiend) when they elected Trump, only to be betrayed yet again.

    cheers my friend
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Andrei Martyanov

    but there are international standardized tests now
     
    Really. So Russia is now Soviet Union? First time I hear this. I can provide you with scans of Kholmogorov's math or Scanavi's and Peryshkin Phisics from public schools, then we may talk.

    Really. So Russia is now Soviet Union?

    The Russian school system is largely the Soviet system. It’s not like it became totally different in 1992.

    TIMSS 1999 (one of the earliest reports) – https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99i_Math_1.pdf

    Russia performs somewhat better on Math than the US and UK, but same as Canada and Australia, and worse than Netherlands, all the developed East Asian countries.

    Note that TIMSS, with its more formal academic structure, is tailored to Russia’s strengths, whereas Russia does relatively worse on PISA, where questions are given in a more real life context.

    with scans of Kholmogorov’s math or Scanavi’s and Peryshkin Phisics

    I am very familiar with Skanavi.

    The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The Russian school system is largely the Soviet system. It’s not like it became totally different in 1992.
     
    Yes it didn't do it in a year, but by 2000 it was not anymore and today we all see the "results". But, I like how you are dropping your mask, sure 1990s was just a fluke, no influence on Russia whatsoever. Judging by the previous posts, causalities will be increasingly ignored.

    The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
     
    Anatoly, you obviously do not understand the difference between standardized tests and knowledge-based education. I will reiterate, from Time magazine (you may also find it in Happenheimer's famous "Countdown"):

    https://www.amazon.com/Countdown-History-Flight-T-Heppenheimer/dp/0471291056

    and I quote: "Average Soviet public school student received three times more instruction in math, physics and biology, than it was stipulated for the entrance to Massachusetts Institute Of Technology".

    As per that:

    Well yes, when you pour 10-15% of GDP (possibly higher) into the military for decades on end, you will get something out of that.
     
    This "Something" is so much that it will be difficult for me to convey to you--totally different universes. Sorry about that. I will, however, refer you to the history of legendary TsAGI--look attentively at the date of its founding, I am not sure now you will understand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @Andrei Martyanov

    the Bolsheviks merely set it back by a few years.
     
    I can not discuss seriously such "interpretations", even despite a great effort on educating population during 19th and 20th centuries. Education, BTW, involves much more than basic literacy. By early 1930s STEM in Soviet public schools was one of the best in the world, by 1950s it became THE BEST in the world and while incorporating some classic Russian educational tradition, it was primarily developed by whatever they are called now (Bolsheviks, Stalinists whatever). It is really difficult to explain the difference in level of knowledge and education which required working in the field and operating lathe or mill in the industrial plant--those are two different universes.

    The 1930-33 famine was 10x as bad as the 1891-92 famine, and another one just as bad happened in 1947, because stabilizing commie puppet states (inc. East Germany) were more important than Russian lives.
     
    No, famine in 1947 was not "as bad" as in 1930-33.

    http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/the-forgotten-famine-of-1946-1948/

    You see, I can also type letters in Google or Yahoo search.

    Moreover, beginning in July 1946, famine once again gripped the Soviet Union. By the time it receded in late 1948, around 1,200,000 people had died, including somewhere between five and eight percent of the population of Moldova, at the time part of the USSR. with a series of publications by academics like Michael Ellmann, Nicholas Ganson and Stephen G. Wheatcroft on the nature, course and cause of the famine. Surprisingly, a number of these authors seek to defend Stalinist agricultural policy by arguing that the famine was largely triggered by environmental circumstances. But a plethora of evidence proves the pivotal role played by communist policy and ideology.

    So, if we are to play with numbers 1.2 (alleged) millions is more than 4 times less than 5-6 millions starved in 1930-33. So, clarification of "as bad" is bad, because it is untrue. But in the end, I don't have an ability to build the bridge (I am much older than you) which will be able to convey a scale of an effort and both tragedy and triumph in being able to endure what USSR/Russia endured in 20th and 21st centuries, all of it being accomplished largely thanks to those damn "communists". Everything what today's Russia has--from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts--this all is heritage of those damn "bolsheviks". Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor. Czarist Russia would have gone at the seams trying to accomplish that. Wait, she did.

    Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor.

    Both the U.S. and the SU benefited heavily from German expertise during and after WWII. I don’t think anyone needs a lesson on the development and spread of nuclear technology or misslie and aerospace technology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Both the U.S. and the SU benefited heavily from German expertise during and after WWII.
     
    True.

    I don’t think anyone needs a lesson on the development and spread of nuclear technology or misslie and aerospace technology.
     
    But they do and I beg to differ--aerospace and nuclear energy are signs of a very high level of development.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @OilcanFloyd
    I visited Leningrad and some of the surrounding areas in June 1990, and it wasn't exactly what I expected. Granted, I only saw a tiny part of the SU for a short time, and I was part of a tour group, so my experiences probably don't mean much. I was also a teenager, with little knowledge about the SU/Russia and its history.

    What I saw was obviously quite a bit less well-off than the West, but it was definitely livable. I imagine it to be quite a bit like the U.S. of the 30s to 50s. It was kind of drab and it looked fairly polluted, kind of like I would imagine an industrial area of the U.S. mid-century. The people also didn't seem desperate (like some of the Russians I met a year or so later in a neighboring country who were selling anything for $5) or like zombies fearing for their lives.

    The interesting thing is that a cab driver and guy who was selling things to obvious tourists both said that they look forward to the future. I don't remember their exact words, but I took it as meaning that they look forward to another system. Either they were hoping that I would say something political so they could arrest me, or they were sincere. I don't know, since I wasn't really political. If they were sincere, I wonder why the western intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the fall of the system?

    I don’t remember their exact words, but I took it as meaning that they look forward to another system.

    In 1990 they looked forward to another system, but already in 1994 a plurality wanted their old system back. And today it’s a majority: in 2015 55% would prefer “A system based on government planning and distribution” vs 24% choosing “A system based on private property and market forces”.

    http://www.levada.ru/en/2015/04/06/citizens-and-the-state/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    but then someone will point out the Republican voters of Arizona, and I’m left speechless.
     
    PTI, but I just can't imagine you ever becoming speechless, Rurik.

    All joking aside, I'm glad to see your thinking has evolved somewhat on this topic. Here's a previous exchange of ours:

    geokat62 – Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons’ preferred candidate?

    Rurik – because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for ‘Israel’ and make lurid promises of everlasting ‘rapture’.
     

    Hey Geo,

    never an interruption, always a pleasure!

    yes, I try always to evolve and stay open minded. I’m here to learn and often I’ll toss out ideas just to see them ravaged so as to discover the error in them

    and I see you fighting the good fight here Sir, so kudos.

    as for Americans, they’re just hopelessly deluded and lied to and yes, too often bovine and uncurious, but their hearts on the whole are good, and if they ever really understood the nature of their government and how evil it is, I think they’d rise up. In fact the way I see it, is the American people did rise up against the war (hag) and the machine (Fiend) when they elected Trump, only to be betrayed yet again.

    cheers my friend

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Anatoly Karlin

    No, famine in 1947 was not “as bad” as in 1930-33.
     
    I phrased that incorrectly - I meant the 1947 famine was as bad as the 1891-92 one. (That is, more than 50 years later. Because the USSR was sending grain to East Germany and Poland. What a wonderful gift from Stalin to the Russian people for victory in WW2).

    I am using the 500,000 deaths figure because that is the excess mortality according to demographic statistics.

    Everything what today’s Russia has–from world-class military-industrial complex, first rate aerospace industry, still viable, and in many respects leading public education, in the end, Anatoly, still one of the most reading nations in the world and the nation where having access to high culture, from enormous network of theaters to museums and other fine arts–this all is heritage of those damn “bolsheviks”.
     
    Well yes, when you pour 10-15% of GDP (possibly higher) into the military for decades on end, you will get something out of that.

    (Though in the end, the Soviet leadership didn't use it, but sold their country for a pair of jeans. And I'm supposed to be the Soviet hater, for some reason).

    Museums, fine arts, etc. - all Silver Age Russian heritage. For instance, the only artistic style of any significance produced in the USSR was soc-realism. That was of course thanks to the communists having exiled (philosopher's ship) and in some cases outright murdered strands of art, culture, literature, and even science (!) that went against Marxist-Leninist principles.

    Let's also stop with this worship of the Soviet education system. You could do this when you had to only anecdote to rely upon, but there are international standardized tests now, and Russians do not perform exceptionally well (by European/North American standards) on them.

    Museums, fine arts, etc. – all Silver Age Russian heritage.

    Ah, yes–now I recall that it was a tradition of Russian peasantry, after 12 hours in the filed for themselves and then another 6-7 hours for batrachestvo to indulge in reading Maximilian Voloshin or, what the hell, jump on metro and get to see show in Bolshoy or Mariinka. This was happening for centuries, after all, serfdom created all necessary conditions for overwhelming majority of Russians to attend to fine arts, that is in those rare moments when they were not solving differential equations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Anatoly Karlin

    Really. So Russia is now Soviet Union?
     
    The Russian school system is largely the Soviet system. It's not like it became totally different in 1992.

    TIMSS 1999 (one of the earliest reports) - https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99i_Math_1.pdf

    Russia performs somewhat better on Math than the US and UK, but same as Canada and Australia, and worse than Netherlands, all the developed East Asian countries.

    Note that TIMSS, with its more formal academic structure, is tailored to Russia's strengths, whereas Russia does relatively worse on PISA, where questions are given in a more real life context.

    with scans of Kholmogorov’s math or Scanavi’s and Peryshkin Phisics
     
    I am very familiar with Skanavi.

    The more - indeed, only - relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)

    The Russian school system is largely the Soviet system. It’s not like it became totally different in 1992.

    Yes it didn’t do it in a year, but by 2000 it was not anymore and today we all see the “results”. But, I like how you are dropping your mask, sure 1990s was just a fluke, no influence on Russia whatsoever. Judging by the previous posts, causalities will be increasingly ignored.

    The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)

    Anatoly, you obviously do not understand the difference between standardized tests and knowledge-based education. I will reiterate, from Time magazine (you may also find it in Happenheimer’s famous “Countdown”):

    https://www.amazon.com/Countdown-History-Flight-T-Heppenheimer/dp/0471291056

    and I quote: “Average Soviet public school student received three times more instruction in math, physics and biology, than it was stipulated for the entrance to Massachusetts Institute Of Technology”.

    As per that:

    Well yes, when you pour 10-15% of GDP (possibly higher) into the military for decades on end, you will get something out of that.

    This “Something” is so much that it will be difficult for me to convey to you–totally different universes. Sorry about that. I will, however, refer you to the history of legendary TsAGI–look attentively at the date of its founding, I am not sure now you will understand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "The Russian school system is largely the Soviet system. It’s not like it became totally different in 1992."

    Yes it didn’t do it in a year, but by 2000 it was not anymore and today we all see the “results”.
     
    The Russian schools of 1999 were not completely different from those of 1992. The decline of Russia's educational system lagged behind the decline of much of the rest of post-Soviet Russian society. It is now rather damaged (with of course some continuing very bright spots - my nephew now studies at MEX-MAT at MGU).

    "The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)"

    Anatoly, you obviously do not understand the difference between standardized tests and knowledge-based education. I will reiterate, from Time magazine (you may also find it in Happenheimer’s famous “Countdown”):
     
    An anecdotal quote by someone somewhere is less compelling than the test data. Another anecdote: a friend of mine, himself an engineer, manages part of a company including a lot of engineers. He's interviewed Russians and has hired one of them; he says they are normal, nothing special.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @OilcanFloyd

    Most importantly, it was Soviet science and industry which gave Russia today a top notch officer corps and nuclear and conventional shield which protects here even today from any aggressor.
     
    Both the U.S. and the SU benefited heavily from German expertise during and after WWII. I don't think anyone needs a lesson on the development and spread of nuclear technology or misslie and aerospace technology.

    Both the U.S. and the SU benefited heavily from German expertise during and after WWII.

    True.

    I don’t think anyone needs a lesson on the development and spread of nuclear technology or misslie and aerospace technology.

    But they do and I beg to differ–aerospace and nuclear energy are signs of a very high level of development.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @OilcanFloyd
    I visited Leningrad and some of the surrounding areas in June 1990, and it wasn't exactly what I expected. Granted, I only saw a tiny part of the SU for a short time, and I was part of a tour group, so my experiences probably don't mean much. I was also a teenager, with little knowledge about the SU/Russia and its history.

    What I saw was obviously quite a bit less well-off than the West, but it was definitely livable. I imagine it to be quite a bit like the U.S. of the 30s to 50s. It was kind of drab and it looked fairly polluted, kind of like I would imagine an industrial area of the U.S. mid-century. The people also didn't seem desperate (like some of the Russians I met a year or so later in a neighboring country who were selling anything for $5) or like zombies fearing for their lives.

    The interesting thing is that a cab driver and guy who was selling things to obvious tourists both said that they look forward to the future. I don't remember their exact words, but I took it as meaning that they look forward to another system. Either they were hoping that I would say something political so they could arrest me, or they were sincere. I don't know, since I wasn't really political. If they were sincere, I wonder why the western intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the fall of the system?

    What was committed against Russia (USSR) and Russians in 1990s is nothing short of genocide. Many people who inspired that are still around. RKMP (Russia Which We Lost, meaning pre-Revolutionary Russia, after Govorukhin’s famous lubok) is a sort of mental disorder for many since they will have to find a justification to a dismantling a country in which, while by no means over-prosperous, normal life was possible through the sequence of the reforms which would eventually abolish communism but will retain the best features of Soviet system. No, at issue was an immense heritage of Soviet Union, even Wall Street Journal (I have article somewhere in my archives) in 1990s compared ерут current Russian “elite” to the flock of crows feeding of the carcass of an elephant. Funny, but same Govorukhin was forced (by his consciousness) to make a sequel to RKMP–Great Criminal Revolution In Russia.

    wonder why the western intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the fall of the system?

    They never knew Russia to start with (today it is even worse and is getting worse every day) plus, who would have thought that high betrayal would bear such fruits. From imbecile Gorbachov, to alcoholic low life power hungry Yeltsin to, probably turned, Yakovlev–I guess that is what it took. But communist idea was pretty much dead by early 1970s. You know why? Because Russians started to live not too badly–first time in Russian history. Personal cars, TVs, Sochi and Crimea vacations, free flats, free superb education, Aeroflot–hey, life was good!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    From imbecile Gorbachov
     
    Gorby was extremely cunning and intelligent (don't get fooled by his accent and poor public speaking ability). His weakness was vanity, not imbecility.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    "I guess that is what it took. But communist idea was pretty much dead by early 1970s. You know why? Because Russians started to live not too badly–first time in Russian history. Personal cars, TVs, Sochi and Crimea vacations, free flats, free superb education, Aeroflot–hey, life was good!"

    I agree. Life was good. i was flying planes every year which I cannot afford now. Life was good was going beyond material things and there was air of confidence in the future. Everybody was sleeping soundly no worrying about lots things now everybody worries about. And demographically situation was positive for decades even despite echo of WW2 and previous famines.
    You are also touching very interesting point. Was socialism possible without 1. Communist party in charge. 2. Without ideological foundation.
    Capitalist society do have ideologies and have private property protected and paramount.
    While considering into what Communist party was turning then and is now as well, I believe communist part in charge is not necessary but firm ideological foundation of what socialist state and economy is and is necessary. Overall looks like Russia and capitalism are completely incompatible. More than that capitalism is like poison that killing Russia.
    It is actually topic not for this format of course. Enjoy the weekend
    , @L.K
    "What was committed against Russia (USSR) and Russians in 1990s is nothing short of genocide."

    What your hero Stalin did was much worse, but you make up all sorts of excuses and lies for the man and his murderous regime.
    Double standards much?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Ivan says:
    @utu
    Yes, you must have been at least 10% or you are suffering from nostalgia for lost youth.

    1956 - less than 5% of city people had hot running water
    - 66% had no running water

    1975 - 20% of state city housing lacked running water and plumbing
    50% did not have hot water

    1977 in Novosibirsk province
    - 78% of houses had no running water
    - 95% of houses lacked hot water
    - 89% wend w/o indoor plumbing
    - 90% went w/o central heat
    - 96% had no telephones in rural areas

    1985 - 10% rural ones had no electricity

    Communal apartments were standard housing for city dwellers into the 1960s. This meant for most families being crammed into one room and sharing kitchen, toilet and bathtub with several other families. In 1970th about 1/4 to 1/3 leaved in such conditions.

    Daily Life in the Soviet Union, Katherine Bliss Eaton
    https://books.google.com/books?id=VVFuYN8TS5AC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=soviet+union+bathrooms+in+1960's&source=bl&ots=x45vq_ejmg&sig=26JCfzf2nbE4jIhzw3yldbMQQlg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkn7un09nTAhWHyoMKHXr0AJUQ6AEIXDAO#v=onepage&q=soviet%20union%20bathrooms%20in%201960's&f=false

    Data per 100 families or households
    TV sets: 32/100 (1965) 95/100 (1981)
    Tape recorders: 4/100 (1965) 33/100 (1981)
    Refrigerators: 17/100 (1965)
    Washing machines: 33/100 (1965) 78/100 (1981)
    Vacuum cleaners: 11/100 (1965) 33/100 (1981)

    In 1985 out of 100 families (rural or urban) nearly 99 had TV and radio sets, 92 had fridges, 72 had washing machines. In urban areas 1/10 had 2 TV sets.

    Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era, Natalya Chernyshova
    https://books.google.com/books?id=vF5Cpij6550C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=washing+machine+TV+sets+in+soviet+union&source=bl&ots=okRouger2p&sig=_sp4xJFK4tCpv_e1bbvULJM99as&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV0-Lo19nTAhXGNiYKHU1eDiAQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=washing%20machine%20TV%20sets%20in%20soviet%20union&f=false

    But look on the bright side, utu: They had more the lethal vodka. That in itself should be worth a few million dead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Perhaps you got me wrong. I like Russians. The ones I knew personally and the ones I know from Russian literature. But you are right. Vodka kills people. Why so many Russians opted to shorten their lives is a separate topic. Many Russians know how to drink but many do not know how to drink. Is Soviet system responsible for it? Good question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Ivan says:
    @AP

    Not true–there were several famines leading to WW I. There were famines BEFORE 1891.
     
    None of these - at least in the 19th century up through World War I - were nearly as bad as the one in 1891-1892 that claimed 400,000-500,000 lives. And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.

    You also didn't address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.

    Thanks for all the information you dug up, and the relevant context. Will come in handy when reading through the commie bitches.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You're welcome :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AP says:
    @Ivan
    Thanks for all the information you dug up, and the relevant context. Will come in handy when reading through the commie bitches.

    You’re welcome :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    It looks like you believe that you can dug up everything from internet and that without reading volumes of related literature for weeks making notes in the process you can come with something worthy. What you, AK and Ivan the Fool are doing is basically digging dung after some ideologically motivated elephants who write no serious scientific volumes and then offering simlistic answers to very complex questions. You also are ideologically blind and will do everything to shore up your arguement at any cost even ignoring obvious facts and sacrificing truth. You also ignore personal experience of other people who lived throw times and conditions you did not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    You also didn’t address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.
     
    Wait a minute, I had to address famine of 1947? First time I hear this, I am writing about pre-revolutionary Russia. But since you volunteered me to address this--here it is: in 1947, my father, a shell-shocked hungry orphan (their aunt, a heroic woman, adopted 10 kids from the extended family) was studying in the rubble of a school (literally, under the skies) using old newspapers for writing, between printed lines. Sure, for the country which just finished the war in which she was basically raised to the ground, had tens of millions people lost, had a lion share of its life stock moved to Germany, had most of its machine-tractor agricultural stations destroyed it is so unusual to have shortages, hunger, even famine. Obviously, you somehow missed the fact that Western Europe, which suffered on several orders of magnitude less than USSR also faced the threat of famine in 1945-46. But who really cares, right?

    And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.
     
    Do you have a conception, a grasp of the scale of Russian Civil War? I am truly fascinated, it is like communicating with the filter which filters out the most crucial knowledge.

    I “know” this from my own ancestral village
     
    You could be surprised, but most modern Russians are two, maximum three generations removed from their ancestral villages. Last time I was in the village was July 2016--a lot of memories there too and not all of them bad.

    Those were kulaks. The smartest, most ambitious, and most hard-working of the peasants.
     
    There is an oriental proverb--no matter how many times one repeats the word sugar, it is not going to become sweet in the mouth. Again, you have scores to settle with Soviet Power, be my guest--there are many ways you can express your grievances but, please, do not try to obfuscate this whole discussion about a pre-revolutionary Russia which was pregnant with revolution pretty much all the time because of the peasant question. It was, for all Russian creative and natural genius, a backward country which from Decembrists to Russian Intelligentsia (a real one, not kreakls) to all kinds of thinkers and political figures was diagnosed with terminal illness. If not for SRs' doctrinal dullness it would have been over for Samoderzhavie in 1905. Pomeshichestvo and peasant "dvor" were Russia's main problem and tragedy. But then again, Stolypin may be also accused of being a bolshevik.

    Sovok propaganda, sorry
     
    Sure, live in your bubble. Good luck.

    “You also didn’t address how, in 1947, the industrialized and modernized Soviet Union managed to have a famine that killed as many people as the one in 1891-1892.”

    Wait a minute, I had to address famine of 1947? First time I hear this, I am writing about pre-revolutionary Russia.

    Well, in addition to, in 1932-1933, having a famine ten times deadlier than the worst one of late Tsarist times, the Soviets managed to equal the worst one of Tsarist time in 1947.

    Sure, for the country which just finished the war in which she was basically raised to the ground, had tens of millions people lost, had a lion share of its life stock moved to Germany,

    1947 was two years after the war ended, and as AK pointed out the Soviets did manage to send a lot of food abroad. Actually they sent a lot of it to the German Nazi-voters, while half a million Soviet people starved to death.

    “And the one in 1891-1892 was 10 times less deadly than the ones in 1921-1922 and 1932-1933.”

    Do you have a conception, a grasp of the scale of Russian Civil War? I am truly fascinated, it is like communicating with the filter which filters out the most crucial knowledge.

    Famine of 1921-1922 was caused by grain confiscation. And the Russian civil war doesn’t excuse 1932-1933.

    “Those were kulaks. The smartest, most ambitious, and most hard-working of the peasants.”

    There is an oriental proverb–no matter how many times one repeats the word sugar, it is not going to become sweet in the mouth

    Well – how do you label someone who works hard, and invests what he makes and prospers as a result of his hard work and planning so that he is better off than his neighbors who did not work as hard, did not save. Privileged? :-)

    Russia which was pregnant with revolution pretty much all the time because of the peasant question.

    At some point in their history most countries had a peasant question. Yet every other European country, and most Asians ones, emerged from this without a Bolshevik nightmare, genocide of native population, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    I don't know about the Nazi voters, but at one point postwar (c.1946) the Germans in the Soviet zone were actually eating better than the ones in the American zone (vengeful attitudes to Germans seemed to be influencing policy in the American-controlled area) and the Americans began to worry that Germans might opt for Communism when their daily calorie intake in a zone where the US troops were living in relative plenty and even luxury was significantly lower than in the Soviet zone. Not too long after that calorie intake for Germans in the US zone began to rise.
    , @utu

    At some point in their history most countries had a peasant question. Yet every other European country, and most Asians ones, emerged from this without a Bolshevik nightmare, genocide of native population, etc.
     
    You made a very good point.

    Russia had a great potential and was on the trajectory of growth and reforms. There was greatness ahead for her and her people. Unfortunately the Bolshevik nightmare interfered. Who were the Bolsheviks? Whose interests they represented? Who really wanted to kill Russia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. AP says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Do you really think having 7 kids on average was a good sign? Mortality was very high and people only had chance to survive old years by having lots of kids. I also look ived in China to see outcomes of overpopulation. Were it not for completely crashed birth rates since 1992 RF and USSR in case of survival would be doing just fine. Most probably with RF hitting 180 millionand USSR around 400 million at least. There were 300 million of us in 1991. More than enough. You really don't want to go China and India way.

    Do you really think having 7 kids on average was a good sign?

    In a country the size of Russia it was a great sign. Russia had room for at least 400 million Russians if not more. It is much bigger than China or India.

    Were it not for completely crashed birth rates since 1992 RF and USSR in case of survival would be doing just fine.

    If Bolsheviks hadn’t crashed Russia’s birth rate, Russia could have absorbed 90s-style demographic damage.

    There were 300 million of us in 1991.

    Not Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    "In a country the size of Russia it was a great sign. Russia had room for at least 400 million Russians if not more. It is much bigger than China or India."

    For the time in question it was a necessary thing considering all factors including mortality.
    I cannot understand why are you saying Bolsheviks crashed Russian birth rates? Did Bolsheviks introduce similar one child per family legislation like Chinese did? On the contrary, Bolsheviks introduced all those good and free things that allowed Soviet women to have kids and grow them healthy and educated. Whatever happened in 20th century was combination of problems that had no been resolved for century or more coming to head with some really bad luck similar to Mongolian invasion. The problem was that those hits to population were coming one after another but still you cannot deny this :
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8

    Despite your lies about about Bolsheviks crashing Russian birth rates one could not expect mostly city based country to have similar birth rates mostly rural based population.
    Even since 1946 population was steadily growing and now look at what happened without Communists doe snot matter how flawed at the end they became.
    The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
    Regarding size of Russia. Size doe snot matter in this case. Firstly you need to look at what climate and condition exist. China and India both have extremely favorable locations to support large population hence China always was very populous country since ancient times and so was India. Vast territories in Russia are not favorable both for human habitation and for agriculture while in many parts of China there can be grown up to 3 crops per year it is impossible in Russia. In Canada population is concentrated along Southern border... The rest of Canada is not dissimilar to Russia and despite larger than China territory Canada boasts minuscule 30+ million population. Russia is an extreme case how population can adjust to unfavorable conditions.

    "Not Russians."

    RF population of 200 million would be absolutely great. The whole of USSR 400 million would be possible too. Also, considering we are from different generations I considered all of Soviet people as OURS. There also were far less Uzbeks, Tadzhiks and Caucasus people in RF then than now.

    "If Bolsheviks hadn’t crashed Russia’s birth rate, Russia could have absorbed 90s-style demographic damage. "

    I already wrote above that city based population could not have similar birth rates compared to rural one. You also taking out of equation WW2 damage. Was that also Bolsheviks undoing?
    Why than modern Russia with such young guys as you cannot produce at least 3 healthy kids?
    How many kids have you got? Would not it better to lead by example and start walking the walk instead of talking the talk. I am older than you probably much older and I am at replacement level.
    The issue of current Russia inability to get out of demographic trap has everything to do with the system that is in Russia. It is literally squeezing life out of Russia. Those parasites and thieves they are eating Russia and Russian alive. Which is where you should direct your anger and energies if you want positive outcome.

    FYI, I used to live in China overall for 2 years and I will tell you you would not want to have the level of population they have there. Both India and China are ticking population bombs. They are in clear overshoot. Thinking that 1+ billion is good is crazy. There is only so much resources to go around . It is akin saying that 600 lbs person must be very strong and virile due to his size despite him being unable to move at all. The level of pollution and related mortality over there is horrendous.
    There was reason why China introduced one child policy but they will have to pay for procreating like rabbits regardless. Look at another 30-50 years of their history. i am not being optimistic.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    What was committed against Russia (USSR) and Russians in 1990s is nothing short of genocide. Many people who inspired that are still around. RKMP (Russia Which We Lost, meaning pre-Revolutionary Russia, after Govorukhin's famous lubok) is a sort of mental disorder for many since they will have to find a justification to a dismantling a country in which, while by no means over-prosperous, normal life was possible through the sequence of the reforms which would eventually abolish communism but will retain the best features of Soviet system. No, at issue was an immense heritage of Soviet Union, even Wall Street Journal (I have article somewhere in my archives) in 1990s compared ерут current Russian "elite" to the flock of crows feeding of the carcass of an elephant. Funny, but same Govorukhin was forced (by his consciousness) to make a sequel to RKMP--Great Criminal Revolution In Russia.

    wonder why the western intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the fall of the system?
     
    They never knew Russia to start with (today it is even worse and is getting worse every day) plus, who would have thought that high betrayal would bear such fruits. From imbecile Gorbachov, to alcoholic low life power hungry Yeltsin to, probably turned, Yakovlev--I guess that is what it took. But communist idea was pretty much dead by early 1970s. You know why? Because Russians started to live not too badly--first time in Russian history. Personal cars, TVs, Sochi and Crimea vacations, free flats, free superb education, Aeroflot--hey, life was good!

    From imbecile Gorbachov

    Gorby was extremely cunning and intelligent (don’t get fooled by his accent and poor public speaking ability). His weakness was vanity, not imbecility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Where did you du