Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
What does the group think about this |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 567 |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||
opuslola 
Tsar 
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: What does the group think about thisPosted: 30-Aug-2010 at 18:59 |
||
|
TGS, amongst your "RED-herrings" are,. or is there any room for the words of Ayn Rand?
Just how do you find them! And just how does one define "Popular Support" in a Communist state? Edited by opuslola - 30-Aug-2010 at 19:40 |
|||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|||
 |
|||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Aug-2010 at 19:57 |
||
|
Cryptic, if you or I are trying to run a new solar system, which had not really been tried before, and you controlled almost all of the material that could or was released to your oppnents, could be manipuliated via friends or co-conspirators in the West, then we see what the Soviet allowed or controlled during the revolution!
Edited by opuslola - 31-Aug-2010 at 15:13 |
|||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|||
|
|||
|
TheGreatSimba
Chieftain 
Joined: 22-Nov-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1152 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Aug-2010 at 12:21 |
||
Finally, words of reason from someone who understands that history is not simply black and white but rather more complicated than it appears! Patryk, your view of the world is very narrow minded. You must look deeper to see the real issues which caused events in history to happen. You saying that China would have been just as rich and advanced as Taiwan without the Maoist revolution is a completely absurd statement, just as your statements regarding Russia. History is grey, not black and white. Its very complicated and many events are caused by social, economic, religious, cultural and political factors and most times a combination of several, if not all, of them. Edited by TheGreatSimba - 31-Aug-2010 at 12:22 |
|||
|
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Aug-2010 at 15:12 |
||
|
But, of course Patryk, only people like TGS can actually see the grey! You and I are, of course, too racist to see this particular shade!
We must give thanks to the "great creator herself" for giving us people of such insight, and of course special vision gifts, like TGS! Actually TGS, "Grey Water" is the waste water from one's home, etc.! But, it is not "toilet water!"  Edited by opuslola - 31-Aug-2010 at 15:17 |
|||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|||
|
|||
|
Patryk
Knight 
Joined: 11-Jul-2010 Location: Hong Kong Online Status: Offline Posts: 97 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2010 at 03:05 |
||
|
TGS,
You and I are at an impasse on same sex marriage so there is little to do but conclude. Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals (except in the military). Marriage IS NOT a right it is a socially constructed institution that sets conditions and and the criteria for membership. In most places, it's restricted to two non-consanguine heterosexuals over a certain age. Society decides the membership criteria. Some meet it and others don't. This doesn't bother me. Loving v. Virginia simply said RACE cannot be one of those factors. It did not open the door to either consanguine marriages, plural marriags, or child marriages.
Now, on to the slaves and the serfs.
Being a serf was MUCH better than being a slave. The Czar freed the serfs circa 1865. They were NOT slaves. The serfs enjoyed greater legal protection as serfs than slaves in the US, who had next to none. The position to which freed-slaves were elevated in 1865 amounted to a pseudo-serfdom, not FREEDOM as we know it. So, the analogy with Russia is imperfect in that respect.
Russia's economic growth between 1920 and 1960 was considerable. But we must ask, why? Was it the superiority of their dialectics? Maybe. Were the simply cooking the books? Possibly. I read an article recently that said that from the NEP to 1941, Russia's gains were made by heavy investment in new capital goods (tractors and trains) at the same time as the collectivised their inefficient agricultural sector.
During the war, a large amount of these new capital stocks were destroyed. So, economic growth continued after 1945 with the aim of rebuilding with the infusion of capital stock from Germany (reparations and slave labour). Once all of the collective farms had tractors and the railways were reconstructed and locomotives allocated to them -- Russian growth stopped dead. By 1970, Russia had bearly any measurable economic growth at all. German slaves (officially POWs) were returned by 1957, those few who survived, anyway. Russian growth slowed in the 1960s and by 1970, the party -- so to speak -- was over.
WHY?
The Soviet model produced fabulous results at directing the economy to rebuild after the war and to build up industry to a certain point. But the economy was not sustainable and was not ever innovative. The much vaunted technological prowess of the Russians was always over-stated. The Russians had a few innovations (the MiG-15 and thier ICBM programme) but these were always at the expense of civilian technologies.
The commissars were adept at guided the rapid transformation of Russia from a still predominately agrarian economy in 1923 (I think that was the first full year of NEP) into an urbanised and industrial economy, but that's were they stalled. They had plateaued by 1970. It is my view that the plateauing happened because the economy lacked any incentives to progress. Earlier progress was achieved under the backdrop of roving death squads and the threat of Siberian exile. After Stalin's death (1953) and especially with Khrushchev's rise (1956) this ceased to be an option. The Soviets should have transitioned to a Market economy 15 years earlier than they did.
China is a harder case. It was indeed quite advanced in 1450, the start of Europe's meteoric rise. But China chose to ignore outside influences and rely on custom. Even in 1600, China was still quite advanced as noted by the likes of Matteo Ricci. But the Qing Dynasty slumbered rather than simply trying to maintain its edge through the 18th and 19th centuries and even resisted any innovations. The results were disasterous. Mao's catch up course produced an impressive Leap Forward but at the cost of tens of millions of lives.
Now, if you look at China in 1949 and again in 1979, the change is noticeable and obvious. But if you at the difference between China in 1979 and 2009, the changes are enormous and deep. China under capitalism is flourishing. China under communism produced lots of tanks and steel. The growth after 1979 has been spectacular such the Beijing residents now sit in traffic jams listening to iPods in their Buicks.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Patryk
Knight
Joined: 11-Jul-2010 Location: Hong Kong Online Status: Offline Posts: 97 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2010 at 03:18 |
||
Ad hominem attack and the occasional cliche do not equal a "deep" understanding of the issues. If I am missing some nuanced details of the great Soviet Economic Miracle, please enlighten me and the entire group.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Patryk
Knight
Joined: 11-Jul-2010 Location: Hong Kong Online Status: Offline Posts: 97 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2010 at 05:08 |
||
This is something that is very hard to quantify. From the sources that I read, there was considerable support for Communism among the urban proletariat. I don't think there was much support among the bourgeoisie, apart from the likes of Lenin and Trotsky who seemed to be alienated from their own group. The peasants seemed quite resistent to the idea, especially after forced collectivisation. Obviously the nobility and the high-bourgeoisie had not time for the riff-raff.
Now, keep in mind, the peasants in 1917 Russia were still the vast majority.
The Communist movement was often derided as being Jewish. In deed, Jews were heavily represented in the ranks of the early revolutionaries, like Trotsky and Zinoviev. Jews were suffered greatly under the Czar although many were still able to climb into the ranks of the middle class. From this, I might posit that Communism was generally opposed by the middle class EXCEPT for the middle class "untouchables" (the Jews), in other words, the members of the middle class who were discriminated against by the rest of the middle class.
So, my theory holds that "popular support" for communism was found largely in the urban proletariat and amongst a minority of the beurgeoisie. As I said, the peasants gave them little support -- hence the mass starvation and insurections. I believe this minority was highly skillful in siezing the reins of power from which the refused to let go until 1991.
It is a question for a Russianist: how much of Lenin's success was due to popular support and how much was due to Trotsky's deft use of the Red Army?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2010 at 10:54 |
||
Good point. Perhaps the support for communism by Russian and Chinese peasants can be viewed two ways:
Support for social change (breaking up of large estates, end to blatantly exploitive "share cropper" systems, end to the institutionalized social class system, end to coerced support of institutional religious systems which affirmed the class sytem etc)
Support for specific communist policies (collectivization of even small farms, suppression or destruction of all religous heritage (even voluntary participation), collectivization of even small rural business and stores, destruction of rural cultural heritage)
Then, the support for various elements of social change was probably vast. The support for specific communist policies was very little.
Serfdom was de facto slavery. Like U.S. slavery, serfs were divided into house serfs and field serfs. They could be transferred amongst property owners, were forbidden to seek other professions and were forbidden to leave the land or to own land of their own. Status as a serf was usually inherited. Some serfs may of had less restrictive "contract holders" in the same way that some U.S. slaves had the ability to earn money and had varying degrees of autonomy.
The U.S. confederates at least acknowledged their slave system. Russia instead propagandized: "These people are not slaves, they are involuntary contract workers with inherited debt who are forbidden to stop working. We don't auction human beings, we just auction unbreakable labor contracts. The slave, no.... I mean "serf" moves with the contract." Edited by Cryptic - 01-Sep-2010 at 12:38 |
|||
|
|||
|
Patryk
Knight
Joined: 11-Jul-2010 Location: Hong Kong Online Status: Offline Posts: 97 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2010 at 04:34 |
||
|
Without going into a long discussion of serfdom, different conditions existed in different places in the Russian Empire. Serdom was actually abolished much earlier than 1861 in lands with German or Swedish nobility. It hung on later in other places. So far as I know, serfs retained the right to marry and the custodial rights of their children. To the extent that serf were portable is news to me. I had always read that they were tied to a plot of land wich allowed then familial consistency. That some serfs were "sold" to other mannors is news to me but may represent a later innovation in the institution.
Anglo-Saxon chattle slavery was rather monolithic in its application in the southern US and in the Caribbean islands.
Obviously, I am not pro-serfdom. But the group would benefit from hearing from somebody who has actually done original research in that field.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2010 at 10:18 |
||
I do not have alot of information, but "selling" serfs is logical and was probably common. Some manor homes would go bankrupt, others would experience financial difficulties and others would have too many serfs. I seriously doubt that land owners were going to voluntarily "free" a captive source of labor capital. Rather, some "contracts" would be sold (in family units) to other manors.
As did almost all U.S. slaves. Breaking up of slave family units was very rare and was usually done only as punishment to individuals deemed to be trouble makers.
I agree, conditions for serfs varied area by area and from manor to manor. The same is true for slaves. Even still, on a day to day basis, I do not think there was alot of difference to the individual serf.
As a side note, U.S. slavery was not as monolithic as carribean island slavery. For example, slaves on some Lousiana plantations were paid cash for labor beyond what was customary. Slaves on the sea islands of Georgia and South Carolina had very little contact with their owners. Rather, they were expected to deliver a determined "tribute" in return for autonomy. They could keep and sell excess rice. In Virginia, many slaves had private gardens and could sell produce for themselves. Edited by Cryptic - 02-Sep-2010 at 10:59 |
|||
|
|||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2010 at 18:57 |
||
|
Thanks Cryptic for a dose of reality into our modern world of re-writing history!
|
|||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2010 at 20:25 |
||
Thanks for the compliments  . I can't help but feel proud that I received compliments from both TGS and Opus (opposite ends of the political spectrum) in the same thread .Edited by Cryptic - 02-Sep-2010 at 20:32 |
|||
|
|||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2010 at 20:44 |
||
|
Well why not! You were not being cryptic in your responses were you?
Besides, TGS and I are really good buddies! 
Iknow it is hard to believe but it is true! TGS is actually my identical twin brother! 
But, one of is a negative and the other is a positive! 
Makes no difference Cryptic, you made some really good sense!
Regards, |
|||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 567 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
