4 ms·

My views on the Soviet Union have shifted over the years, when I learned about Stalin's offer of a unified Germany in the 1950's which was rejected, for example

My views on the Soviet Union have shifted over the years, when I learned about Stalin's offer of a unified Germany in the 1950's which was rejected, for example, and you realise the USA also was guilty of prosecuting the Cold War. The technological progress made was impressive, although I thought it was made largely at the cost of the people and workers, rather than in co-operation with them. I am a socialist, (anarchist) and anti-Bolshevik. The October revolution was more of a right wing coup, which came after a true broad based revolution according to my interpretation of history. That said, despite the brutal methods employed to reinstate managerial control of the factories and so on, the country did progress from an impoverished, illiterate state in 1917 to an advanced manufacturing state. The same can be said of China, which in 1948 was developmentally on the level of say India or Africa.

hdre4hee5 6y ago
Ah yes, Good Faith Joseph Stalin. LOL jesus.
nickik 6y ago
> The October revolution was more of a right wing coup, which came after a true broad based revolution according to my interpretation of history. It was a coup from some socialist against others. Only an anarchist could call it 'right wing' and by that standard essentially 99.9% of history is 'right wing'. Seems kind of a useless way of using words. > the country did progress from an impoverished, illiterate state in 1917 to an advanced manufacturing state This is mostly nonsense. People regularly underestimate the Imperial economy. If you actually look at the Imperial economy and the war economy they had during the war, it was quite impressive. The efforts by socialist to call it some medieval economy is just plane nonsense. Growth during the last 30 years of Imperial was quite good, among the best in Europe. Arguably the Soviet economy was never as dynamic. And only the Stalin industrialization drives produced more industrial growth at a cost the Imperial government wouldn't pay. Check out this set of lectures on Imperial Russia, it includes a lot of insight on their economy and industry: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQN7jahEjbUPPY https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQ...
- arethuza 6y ago
  I found A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes an excellent account of the times (NB obviously I am not a historian): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_Tragedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_Tragedy Surprisingly readable given its length.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  Well if you look at their actions, they were anti-worker, they had to recapture the factories from the soviets (worker councils) and reinstate managerial control. This meant fighting the most dedicated revolutionaries and socialists, a real tragedy IMO. in 1917 the country was 90% illiterate. It was also mostly foreign-owned, kind of like a 3rd world country.
  - nickik 6y ago
    You can't just declare those you liked as the 'most dedicated'. They put workers in control of those factories, and only because of that did they have any chance at to win the Civil war and making Soviet Union as such possible. So who is really the 'most dedicated'. > in 1917 the country was 90% illiterate. It was also mostly foreign-owned, kind of like a 3rd world country. The point is not that Imperial Russia is some kind of paradise, but that there is not fundamental break between Imperial and Soviet, no matter how much propaganda wants to 'start history' in 1917. The land was the most productive asset in the country, and that was not foreign-owned. In fact it was mostly owned by the peasantry themselves.
mc32 6y ago
I don’t know what history books you’re reading or what Russians you talk to, but saying some of the revolutionaries were right wing coup of the true left wing is revisionist hope. The way it played out in the USSR is the way it always plays out with socialists. There are the useful idiots and there are the true dogmatists. Lenin and Stalin were true dogmatists. There were many fallouts and betrayals -Trotsky being the most infamous, but that was all internecine.
goodcanadian 6y ago
. . . when I learned about Stalin's offer of a unified Germany in the 1950's which was rejected . . . I was not familiar with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note EDIT: While there is no question that the West was also responsible for prosecuting the cold war, it is not at all clear that a reasonable agreement could have been reached in 1952. There is debate as to whether the offer of negotiation was sincere.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  Well we just don't know because it wasn't even considered, it's just not something you learn about in history usually.
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    Well, granted my knowledge derives from a single Wikipedia article, but it sounds to me like they considered it and concluded there was more to lose than there was to gain. Several diplomatic notes were sent back and forth and they couldn't even agree on basic conditions for starting negotiations. Yes, the West had ulterior motives, but it is naive to think that the USSR didn't also.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  The division of Germany also suggests an explanation of how Hitler wound up in his bunker that does not assume he was a madman. If he had had reason to believe that the west and the east would be in conflict soon after they met[1], he might have been hoping to sell Germany off to one or the other side.[2] The Cold War did indeed come about, but unfortunately for Hitler, the two sides were happy to ignore any "Not for individual sale"[3] labels. [1] read the Sportpalast speech to find out how they sold themselves as protecting all of europe against communism. [2] Liebes Volk! Unser viewpoint has evolved with political and economic developments in the area! [3] Sunrise, Paperclip, etc. What were the eastern equivalents?
  - goodcanadian 6y ago

hdre4hee5 6y ago

Ah yes, Good Faith Joseph Stalin. LOL jesus.

nickik 6y ago

> The October revolution was more of a right wing coup, which came after a true broad based revolution according to my interpretation of history. It was a coup from some socialist against others. Only an anarchist could call it 'right wing' and by that standard essentially 99.9% of history is 'right wing'. Seems kind of a useless way of using words. > the country did progress from an impoverished, illiterate state in 1917 to an advanced manufacturing state This is mostly nonsense. People regularly underestimate the Imperial economy. If you actually look at the Imperial economy and the war economy they had during the war, it was quite impressive. The efforts by socialist to call it some medieval economy is just plane nonsense. Growth during the last 30 years of Imperial was quite good, among the best in Europe. Arguably the Soviet economy was never as dynamic. And only the Stalin industrialization drives produced more industrial growth at a cost the Imperial government wouldn't pay. Check out this set of lectures on Imperial Russia, it includes a lot of insight on their economy and industry: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQN7jahEjbUPPY https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQ...

arethuza 6y ago
I found A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes an excellent account of the times (NB obviously I am not a historian): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_Tragedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_Tragedy Surprisingly readable given its length.
Synaesthesia 6y ago
Well if you look at their actions, they were anti-worker, they had to recapture the factories from the soviets (worker councils) and reinstate managerial control. This meant fighting the most dedicated revolutionaries and socialists, a real tragedy IMO. in 1917 the country was 90% illiterate. It was also mostly foreign-owned, kind of like a 3rd world country.
- nickik 6y ago
  You can't just declare those you liked as the 'most dedicated'. They put workers in control of those factories, and only because of that did they have any chance at to win the Civil war and making Soviet Union as such possible. So who is really the 'most dedicated'. > in 1917 the country was 90% illiterate. It was also mostly foreign-owned, kind of like a 3rd world country. The point is not that Imperial Russia is some kind of paradise, but that there is not fundamental break between Imperial and Soviet, no matter how much propaganda wants to 'start history' in 1917. The land was the most productive asset in the country, and that was not foreign-owned. In fact it was mostly owned by the peasantry themselves.

mc32 6y ago

I don’t know what history books you’re reading or what Russians you talk to, but saying some of the revolutionaries were right wing coup of the true left wing is revisionist hope. The way it played out in the USSR is the way it always plays out with socialists. There are the useful idiots and there are the true dogmatists. Lenin and Stalin were true dogmatists. There were many fallouts and betrayals -Trotsky being the most infamous, but that was all internecine.

goodcanadian 6y ago

. . . when I learned about Stalin's offer of a unified Germany in the 1950's which was rejected . . . I was not familiar with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note EDIT: While there is no question that the West was also responsible for prosecuting the cold war, it is not at all clear that a reasonable agreement could have been reached in 1952. There is debate as to whether the offer of negotiation was sincere.

Synaesthesia 6y ago
Well we just don't know because it wasn't even considered, it's just not something you learn about in history usually.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  Well, granted my knowledge derives from a single Wikipedia article, but it sounds to me like they considered it and concluded there was more to lose than there was to gain. Several diplomatic notes were sent back and forth and they couldn't even agree on basic conditions for starting negotiations. Yes, the West had ulterior motives, but it is naive to think that the USSR didn't also.
082349872349872 6y ago
The division of Germany also suggests an explanation of how Hitler wound up in his bunker that does not assume he was a madman. If he had had reason to believe that the west and the east would be in conflict soon after they met[1], he might have been hoping to sell Germany off to one or the other side.[2] The Cold War did indeed come about, but unfortunately for Hitler, the two sides were happy to ignore any "Not for individual sale"[3] labels. [1] read the Sportpalast speech to find out how they sold themselves as protecting all of europe against communism. [2] Liebes Volk! Unser viewpoint has evolved with political and economic developments in the area! [3] Sunrise, Paperclip, etc. What were the eastern equivalents?
- goodcanadian 6y ago