3 ms·

> 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 cou

by 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.

by nickik 6y ago

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.