4 ms·

Honestly, it would have had them either way. You can't change the shitshow that was Imperial Russia that easily, and tsarist legacy was hamstringing any reform

by p_l 3y ago

Honestly, it would have had them either way. You can't change the shitshow that was Imperial Russia that easily, and tsarist legacy was hamstringing any reform (for example in the decision to continue the systems of secret police and prison camps - neither was Communist invention) However they did fuckup in many areas in the economy, something that was recognised internally at least by some - as seen by multiple attempts at reforms. Also, one can't discount the unbelievably favourable position of the USA at the end of WW2 when analysing this (in comparison, Soviets started with a worse position than many would believe, because Imperial Russia really wasn't well off)

dijit 3y ago
A lot of people forget that the reason there even was an uprising was because the country was so poor and the upper class was seen as decadent and out of touch.
- foobarian 3y ago
  Honestly they also seemed to have gotten really unlucky with their last tsar. Makes you wonder how things would have played out if they got someone exceptionally good instead of Nicholas II.
  - kwhitefoot 3y ago
    > how things would have played out if they got someone exceptionally good instead of Nicholas II. It's not just the man or woman at the top who make the country work. Peter the Great and Catherine the Great tried to modernize. But the nobility put up a lot of resistance or simply didn't turn up for committee meetings.
badpun 3y ago
> Honestly, it would have had them either way. The pre-soviet famines were of natural causes - crop failures due to droughts etc. After soviets took over the country, these were still ocurring, but were dwarfed by man-made famines, caused by idiotic economic policies (mainly by forced collectivization, which decimated productivity).
- Attrecomet 3y ago
  That certainly sounds like bs. The pre-soviet famines' causes were directly the repressive, backward, exploitative and simply evil system that existed and forced the peasants to starve so the nobility and select bourgeois upper class members co-opted into the system could live lives of decadence.
  - xhkkffbf 3y ago
    Yes. Read Timothy Snyder's _Bloodlands_ for a deeper understanding of just how the peasants were starved. Or watch the movie "Mr. Jones".
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  Everything is man made when it’s “them” (communists). And just part of society and natural when things happen in America’s capitalism. The US doesn’t even have universal health care. I don’t know the exact death figures, but it’s not pretty. All deaths that could be prevented from some basic collectivist attitude. Instead of forced individualism.
throwaway6734 3y ago
The soviets were instrumental in starting WW2. They have no one to blame but themselves
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  Seth McMeekin's book, _Stalin's War_, is a great way to understand just how they did it. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/06/stalins-war-by-sean-mcmeekin-review-a-revisionist-take-on-the-second-world-war https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/06/stalins-war-by...
- p_l 3y ago
  Oh, I'm not claiming they didn't. It's just that usually in such comparisons you get to see USA, and USA was an extreme outlier that makes comparison useless in my opinion.

by p_l 3y ago

dijit 3y ago

A lot of people forget that the reason there even was an uprising was because the country was so poor and the upper class was seen as decadent and out of touch.

foobarian 3y ago
Honestly they also seemed to have gotten really unlucky with their last tsar. Makes you wonder how things would have played out if they got someone exceptionally good instead of Nicholas II.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  > how things would have played out if they got someone exceptionally good instead of Nicholas II. It's not just the man or woman at the top who make the country work. Peter the Great and Catherine the Great tried to modernize. But the nobility put up a lot of resistance or simply didn't turn up for committee meetings.

badpun 3y ago

> Honestly, it would have had them either way. The pre-soviet famines were of natural causes - crop failures due to droughts etc. After soviets took over the country, these were still ocurring, but were dwarfed by man-made famines, caused by idiotic economic policies (mainly by forced collectivization, which decimated productivity).

Attrecomet 3y ago
That certainly sounds like bs. The pre-soviet famines' causes were directly the repressive, backward, exploitative and simply evil system that existed and forced the peasants to starve so the nobility and select bourgeois upper class members co-opted into the system could live lives of decadence.
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  Yes. Read Timothy Snyder's _Bloodlands_ for a deeper understanding of just how the peasants were starved. Or watch the movie "Mr. Jones".
skinnymuch 3y ago
Everything is man made when it’s “them” (communists). And just part of society and natural when things happen in America’s capitalism. The US doesn’t even have universal health care. I don’t know the exact death figures, but it’s not pretty. All deaths that could be prevented from some basic collectivist attitude. Instead of forced individualism.

throwaway6734 3y ago

The soviets were instrumental in starting WW2. They have no one to blame but themselves

xhkkffbf 3y ago
Seth McMeekin's book, _Stalin's War_, is a great way to understand just how they did it. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/06/stalins-war-by-sean-mcmeekin-review-a-revisionist-take-on-the-second-world-war https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/06/stalins-war-by...
p_l 3y ago
Oh, I'm not claiming they didn't. It's just that usually in such comparisons you get to see USA, and USA was an extreme outlier that makes comparison useless in my opinion.