4 ms·

It resulted in such strong social cooperation that the majority of the population (the workers) succeeded in a revolution in 1917 and then for decades drastical

It resulted in such strong social cooperation that the majority of the population (the workers) succeeded in a revolution in 1917 and then for decades drastically improved their material conditions. There are of course other factors than climate.

0dayz 3y ago
You do realize that "the people " marching towards Moscow demanding change never happen? Instead it was apathy from the people that caused the revolution to be a success. Where you literally had guards not caring if the revolutionaries took over the position or building? And the material conditions did not drastically improve, the USSR struggled with living conditions until it's demise. If anything the blatant corruption made social cooperation impossible.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
The October Revolution didn’t involve the majority of the population (workers). The Bolsheviks had strong support from railroad workers and the army specifically, and with key infrastructure captured they were able to eventually win the day, albeit after a famous civil war with working-class people fighting on both sides. Many successful revolutions throughout history were won by minority groups. The October Revolution also wasn’t Russia’s first revolution that year. The tsar had already been ousted in the February Revolution, and considering that Russia had already begun to industrialize significantly in the final years of tsarist rule, it is certainly likely that Russia would have enjoyed rising prosperity even if Lenin had not returned from exile and made his coup.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
Debatable whether that was the workers and the extent to which material conditions improved. Certainly, the political conditions were atrocious, and there was the whole Holodomor thing that pro-Soviet narratives like to leave out. Was killing millions an improvement? And then Russia today has very low social trust, which is less surprising when you look at them being a totalitarian dictatorship for so long.

0dayz 3y ago

You do realize that "the people " marching towards Moscow demanding change never happen? Instead it was apathy from the people that caused the revolution to be a success. Where you literally had guards not caring if the revolutionaries took over the position or building? And the material conditions did not drastically improve, the USSR struggled with living conditions until it's demise. If anything the blatant corruption made social cooperation impossible.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

The October Revolution didn’t involve the majority of the population (workers). The Bolsheviks had strong support from railroad workers and the army specifically, and with key infrastructure captured they were able to eventually win the day, albeit after a famous civil war with working-class people fighting on both sides. Many successful revolutions throughout history were won by minority groups. The October Revolution also wasn’t Russia’s first revolution that year. The tsar had already been ousted in the February Revolution, and considering that Russia had already begun to industrialize significantly in the final years of tsarist rule, it is certainly likely that Russia would have enjoyed rising prosperity even if Lenin had not returned from exile and made his coup.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

Debatable whether that was the workers and the extent to which material conditions improved. Certainly, the political conditions were atrocious, and there was the whole Holodomor thing that pro-Soviet narratives like to leave out. Was killing millions an improvement? And then Russia today has very low social trust, which is less surprising when you look at them being a totalitarian dictatorship for so long.