3 ms·
> In 1917, Russia was one of the most backwards countries in Europe But the counterfactual isn't stasis. Russia of 1913 was busy on the same sort of government
by iguy 6y ago
> In 1917, Russia was one of the most backwards countries in Europe
But the counterfactual isn't stasis. Russia of 1913 was busy on the same sort of government-driven upswing that Germany had ridden a few years earlier, there was lots of modernization going on and lots more planned. The soviet propaganda of course was very keen to downplay this, so they pushed "practically a feudal agrarian society" ideas hard.
At the same time as making Spitnik & submarines, and many many tractors, I think they also never equaled the 1913 harvest. At their peak, perhaps early 60s, they were still importing a lot of food from the prairies. In the 80s, without imports, the calculation was that they'd have been back to WWII levels of rationing.
- RobertoG 6y agoAll that is probably truth (even if serfdom was a thing until 1861 and so late like 1915 they were still dealing with the consequences), but there is a clear historical fact, whatever the soviet propaganda said: people well feed and happy don't start communist revolutions. You mention Germany. The Bismark government (hardly a communist government) created the first social security program, probably because they were afraid of what could happen if they don't.
- iguy 6y agoYes there are lots of parallels to Germany, which also took a very state-driven development line in general, and this intensified during the war. I think Lenin's model was explicitly that of WWI germany. Of course the Prussian PR machine didn't sound much like the soviet one, but they were hardly polar opposites. And the people eating the 1913 harvest didn't start a revolution. The empire fell apart after years of war (as did the Austrians, and the Turks) and then many factions duked it out. And then reconquered all the hungry people who hoped they'd seen the last of guys from Moscow, with guns.
- RobertoG 6y ago>>"And the people eating the 1913 harvest didn't start a revolution. The empire fell apart after years of war [..]" I don't think it's so simple. We have to account for the revolution in 1905. The Wikipedia article is a good one (1) and I think it shows the zeitgeist. In my view is the pressure of the system in the peasants and in the proletariat what creates the conditions for 1917, even if the wars were the trigger. (1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution