10 ms·

Thanks, but no, thanks. We're steal dealing with the results of the last one.

by usrnm 2y ago

n4r9 2y ago
Explain?
- ciupicri 2y ago
  He's probably referring to the fact that we're still dealing with the effects of communism brought by Vladimir Lenin.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    It's not clear whether "we" means Russia or the rest of the world. But even so, would Russia be better off if the revolution hadn't happened?
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      Clearly u/usrnm meant the world, not Russia, and not the rest of the world, but all of us.
    - piombisallow 2y ago
      Yeah
    - benterix 2y ago
      As all hypothetical questions about the past, it's hard to say. From the PoV of a common citizen, people were as poor before the revolution as after it. Also, the rise of Stalin and WWII add enormous noise to the equation. In any case, the best we can do is to have a look at the countries that adopted Communism (the Eastern bloc) and compare them with their neighbors that didn't (have to). From that perspective, the answer is clear. OTOH, if instead of Stalin Russia had a wise ruler, if instead of a police state it allowed people to explore various ideas and develop them, I bet we could see some very interesting results.
      - n4r9 2y ago
        Thanks for the considered response. I guess it was a provocative question. Regarding this: "the best we can do is to have a look at the countries that adopted Communism (the Eastern bloc) and compare them with their neighbors that didn't (have to)" This does feel like an informative perspective. I suppose it assumes that Eastern bloc countries would be left to their own devices in the absence of the Lenin/Stalin USSR, which may be fairly safe to assume.
southernplaces7 2y ago
At least as far as American geopolitical dominance is concerned, the Marxist revolutions in both Russia's Empire and China were probably the best thing that could have happened to the U.S. Without going into deeply detailed arguments for why, they essentially threw these large, geographically and socially rich countries back by decades from levels of wealth and power that they could have achieved much earlier to become stronger rivals for dominance before was actually the case in modern history. The USSR did eventually industrialize itself into a major military and economic power under Stalin, but only at grotesque cost in human lives, resources and efficiency that first had to overcome the vast destruction that had happened between 1917 and 1933 or so. The Nazi invasion didn't help after that but the communist system had already done considerable damage by itself.
- thiagoharry 2y ago
  This is not what history tells. What we get is: the only time that western hegemony was threatened by non-western countries in modern times, they followed a variation of Marxism with revolutionary origin. Countries that did not followed this path, failed to threaten western hegemony. Despite some of them managing to get some wealth becoming partners of the west if they have a communist neighbor, at the cost of having a subordinate relationship, forfeiting some sovereignty and military control so that they cannot threaten western hegemony. When Russia embraced capitalism, they become a shadow of what they once where, and the main threat to West hegemony is now a socialist country that managed to retain and adapt their communist path to the change of times. This is confirmed by the western actions, that always resort to violence to prevent marxist parties to have influence in any country and create strong economic sieges against the ones that succeed, instead of encouraging them.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    What you say is mostly either mistaken or blindly ideological nonsense. In the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, Russia was one of the most powerful economies in the world. Under Marxist rule it first fell backward severely and only later, at immense cost in human lives and waste, industrialized and militarized to a level strong enough to make it a political competitor of the United States. However, during this prolonged period of industrialized communist administration, it slowly hollowed itself out until (without taking a more market oriented path, regardless of what political system it maintained), the USSR was a shell masquerading as a powerful force, leading to its economic collapse. The country could have maintained the communist facade and authoritarian government, while streamlining internally through capitalistic mechanisms, but it didn't before simply dissolving, and thus the sheer poverty that it had brought itself to, absent real economic reforms, was laid bare by the end of the 1980's. Had the Russian Empire simply maintained the pseudo-capitalistic system under authoritarian rule that was the case under the czars, or even embraced the progressive liberal socialist (but partly capitalist) system that it was starting to develop between the February 1917 revolution and the Bolshevik coup of late 1917, Russia could have grown enormously and early as both an economic and political power in a way that would have made it into a very strong power indeed leading up to the 21st century. It was soviet communism that slowly destroyed it, but first it did make it stronger through the sheer brute force of command industrialization and militarization at all costs, these mainly being huge and completely unsustainable costs in resources, sound economic practice and human life. This industrialized strengthening under a communist command economy was not at all sustainable for the long run in the case of the USSR. It had no choice but to either rot and collapse, or reform into a guided authoritarian market economy as happened in China (coming to that momentarily) The chaotic lunacy of post-1991 Russia had little to do with any sort of functional, organized market system. It was instead closer to a stateless anarchy with a minimal, dysfunctional facade of a working central government riding on top of it. It was only after consolidation of administrative control under Putin that Russia started to redevelop economically, though still very imperfectly because under Putin too, things remain deeply corrupt, often poorly administered, though more functional and closely controlled by central authority than they were under Yeltsin. In the case of China, it only became a truly serious competitor to U.S. dominance once it started embracing market economics and completely abandoning centralized, command economy communism as of the 1980's. Prior to that, with the exception of a very big army and possession of the nuclear bomb (produced also at huge human cost), it was in most ways a very backward, clumsy power, albeit one with enough sheer weight to have at least some regional push. Modern China is by far closer to a fascist, authoritarian capitalist economy than a country following anything resembling a communist path. In other words, it has more in common with the Nationalist system envisioned (but very, very ineptly implemented) by Chiang Kai Shek than with anything that the Marxist Chairman Mao had in mind. If the ghosts of both men are by chance wandering the landscape of modern China, I think it would be Chiang who you'd find nodding in approval much more often than Mao. Ironic really, but definitely not a case of capitalism weakening political power.

Thanks, but no, thanks. We're steal dealing with the results of the last one.

by usrnm 2y ago

Thanks, but no, thanks. We're steal dealing with the results of the last one.

n4r9 2y ago

Explain?

ciupicri 2y ago
He's probably referring to the fact that we're still dealing with the effects of communism brought by Vladimir Lenin.
- n4r9 2y ago
  It's not clear whether "we" means Russia or the rest of the world. But even so, would Russia be better off if the revolution hadn't happened?
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Clearly u/usrnm meant the world, not Russia, and not the rest of the world, but all of us.
  - piombisallow 2y ago
    Yeah
  - benterix 2y ago
    As all hypothetical questions about the past, it's hard to say. From the PoV of a common citizen, people were as poor before the revolution as after it. Also, the rise of Stalin and WWII add enormous noise to the equation. In any case, the best we can do is to have a look at the countries that adopted Communism (the Eastern bloc) and compare them with their neighbors that didn't (have to). From that perspective, the answer is clear. OTOH, if instead of Stalin Russia had a wise ruler, if instead of a police state it allowed people to explore various ideas and develop them, I bet we could see some very interesting results.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      Thanks for the considered response. I guess it was a provocative question. Regarding this: "the best we can do is to have a look at the countries that adopted Communism (the Eastern bloc) and compare them with their neighbors that didn't (have to)" This does feel like an informative perspective. I suppose it assumes that Eastern bloc countries would be left to their own devices in the absence of the Lenin/Stalin USSR, which may be fairly safe to assume.

southernplaces7 2y ago

At least as far as American geopolitical dominance is concerned, the Marxist revolutions in both Russia's Empire and China were probably the best thing that could have happened to the U.S. Without going into deeply detailed arguments for why, they essentially threw these large, geographically and socially rich countries back by decades from levels of wealth and power that they could have achieved much earlier to become stronger rivals for dominance before was actually the case in modern history. The USSR did eventually industrialize itself into a major military and economic power under Stalin, but only at grotesque cost in human lives, resources and efficiency that first had to overcome the vast destruction that had happened between 1917 and 1933 or so. The Nazi invasion didn't help after that but the communist system had already done considerable damage by itself.

thiagoharry 2y ago
This is not what history tells. What we get is: the only time that western hegemony was threatened by non-western countries in modern times, they followed a variation of Marxism with revolutionary origin. Countries that did not followed this path, failed to threaten western hegemony. Despite some of them managing to get some wealth becoming partners of the west if they have a communist neighbor, at the cost of having a subordinate relationship, forfeiting some sovereignty and military control so that they cannot threaten western hegemony. When Russia embraced capitalism, they become a shadow of what they once where, and the main threat to West hegemony is now a socialist country that managed to retain and adapt their communist path to the change of times. This is confirmed by the western actions, that always resort to violence to prevent marxist parties to have influence in any country and create strong economic sieges against the ones that succeed, instead of encouraging them.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  What you say is mostly either mistaken or blindly ideological nonsense. In the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, Russia was one of the most powerful economies in the world. Under Marxist rule it first fell backward severely and only later, at immense cost in human lives and waste, industrialized and militarized to a level strong enough to make it a political competitor of the United States. However, during this prolonged period of industrialized communist administration, it slowly hollowed itself out until (without taking a more market oriented path, regardless of what political system it maintained), the USSR was a shell masquerading as a powerful force, leading to its economic collapse. The country could have maintained the communist facade and authoritarian government, while streamlining internally through capitalistic mechanisms, but it didn't before simply dissolving, and thus the sheer poverty that it had brought itself to, absent real economic reforms, was laid bare by the end of the 1980's. Had the Russian Empire simply maintained the pseudo-capitalistic system under authoritarian rule that was the case under the czars, or even embraced the progressive liberal socialist (but partly capitalist) system that it was starting to develop between the February 1917 revolution and the Bolshevik coup of late 1917, Russia could have grown enormously and early as both an economic and political power in a way that would have made it into a very strong power indeed leading up to the 21st century. It was soviet communism that slowly destroyed it, but first it did make it stronger through the sheer brute force of command industrialization and militarization at all costs, these mainly being huge and completely unsustainable costs in resources, sound economic practice and human life. This industrialized strengthening under a communist command economy was not at all sustainable for the long run in the case of the USSR. It had no choice but to either rot and collapse, or reform into a guided authoritarian market economy as happened in China (coming to that momentarily) The chaotic lunacy of post-1991 Russia had little to do with any sort of functional, organized market system. It was instead closer to a stateless anarchy with a minimal, dysfunctional facade of a working central government riding on top of it. It was only after consolidation of administrative control under Putin that Russia started to redevelop economically, though still very imperfectly because under Putin too, things remain deeply corrupt, often poorly administered, though more functional and closely controlled by central authority than they were under Yeltsin. In the case of China, it only became a truly serious competitor to U.S. dominance once it started embracing market economics and completely abandoning centralized, command economy communism as of the 1980's. Prior to that, with the exception of a very big army and possession of the nuclear bomb (produced also at huge human cost), it was in most ways a very backward, clumsy power, albeit one with enough sheer weight to have at least some regional push. Modern China is by far closer to a fascist, authoritarian capitalist economy than a country following anything resembling a communist path. In other words, it has more in common with the Nationalist system envisioned (but very, very ineptly implemented) by Chiang Kai Shek than with anything that the Marxist Chairman Mao had in mind. If the ghosts of both men are by chance wandering the landscape of modern China, I think it would be Chiang who you'd find nodding in approval much more often than Mao. Ironic really, but definitely not a case of capitalism weakening political power.