3 ms·
Certainly bad, but does not seem at the scale or intent of the gulags. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag At least it
by yters 7y ago
Certainly bad, but does not seem at the scale or intent of the gulags.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
At least it is hard to see how the Soviets were an improvement on the past.
- the_af 7y agoPeasants, workers and people from non-aristocratic families could rise to the top?
- yters 7y agoCould they? Seems like everyone became a serf of the state. Plus, the millions sent to the gulags couldn't rise.
- the_af 7y agoYes, they could. The state was formed by people from non aristocratic backgrounds and it is undeniable there was upward mobility compared to the rigid caste system of the Russian Empire. You can argue that it was a totalitarian government ruled by dictators, but you cannot argue that it was ruled by an aristocracy or that a peasant couldn't rise up to rule the country. A well connected Party member or apparatchik could live relatively decently regardless of his ancestry, on "merit" (connectedness) alone. Yes, he could also get shot or imprisoned, but the same was true with the Empire, where he'd never rule. Stalin was born in a poor family. Lenin's was wealthy middle class, but not aristocratic. Trotsky was born to (wealthy) farmers. Kruschev was the son of peasants and Brezhnev the son of workers. Just to name a few...
- yters 7y agoSounds like they just created a new aristocratic class that was even more brutal. Still hard to see an improvement.