|
Less Joe Stalin and more Joe Hill.
|
Quote:
|
Then there's the people that think Stalin some how caused the drought that lead to the great famine and that the USSR didn't live past that moment.
|
Quote:
|
Again, less Joe Stalin and more Joe Hill. The OG radical folk songwriter who inspired Woody Guthrie.
Who's been immortalized in song many times as a working class martyr for his life story. |
Quote:
Which, OH has kind of defended saying that they were only treated that way because they refused to give up private ownership. I'm sure nobody is surprised by that. |
He didn't cause the droughts... Nobody literally ever argued he caused the droughts, dummy :bonkhead:
He collectivized agriculture and used the crop yields to rapidly industrialize... And when famine conditions arose he continued to export the crop yields to pay for industrialization. The fact that you might've had a much smaller famine anyway based on natural factors doesn't erase the extra millions of lives that were intentionally sacrificed for the"greater good" of the states objectives It wasn't racism that drove the policy either. It was simply the pragmatic circumstances of the fact that ukraine was the bread basket of the soviet empire. |
Quote:
|
Scholars continue to debate "whether the man-made Soviet famine was a central act in a campaign of genocide, or whether it was designed to simply cow Ukrainian peasants into submission, drive them into the collectives and ensure a steady supply of grain for Soviet industrialization."[94
From wiki |
It is debated, but my understanding of it (forced collectivization policies in the five year plan) was that it was more motivated by class (Dekulakization) than by race/ethnicity. Which isn't to say there weren't plenty of examples racism and ethnic prejudice throughout Stalin's tenure. Regardless, the result was in effect genocide regardless of the motivations.
|
Actually my understanding is that the kulaks were largely sent to gulags and the like where as entire regions of the ukraine and russia were systematically starved under the industrialization efforts. Most of those people weren't kulaks. Kulaks were essentially the economic upper crust of the peasant population.
And there might certainly be ethnic aspects to it as well but again I think that's down more to the circumstances that certain ethnicities inhabited the majority of the farmland where the crops were grown. Stalin himself wasn't even ethnically russian, he was from Georgia. There were other ethnic persecutions as well such as against Catholics and poles but that largely comes down to a suspicion over where their true loyalty lies... A lot of the seeming nationalism the soviets displayed was strictly strategic and about wielding and preserving power imo. |
Quote:
It's almost as if there are huge political biases that try to obscure facts to fit their agenda. I also found out Quote:
But anyways, as far as I understand the grander famine was caused more by the drought than policy and people like to blame policy for political reasons. You know, we live in a country that literally installs dictators where ever any hint of socialism crops up and spreads the most anticommunist propaganda in the world. Of course there's going to be people that say it was collectivization that caused the famine but to me it seems obvious that collectivization doesn't cause a lack of resources especially when the USSR had to go to the US to save them from starvation. And it's also obvious that deprioritizing Ukrainians when it came to feeding people was also intentional and any contention comes from the fact that the USSR tried to cover it up as much as possible. |
And OH is not wrong when saying that it's mostly due to the fact that Ukraine wouldn't give up private ownership so Stalin was trying to make an example of them.
|
The initial cause of the famine was natural. Famines had been happening in that region periodically since long before 1917. It was the scale of the famine which was caused by policy.
You don't think collectivization leads to a lack of resources.... Well first of all the collectivization efforts were largely a failure. They expected to increase the crop u yields drastically and that didn't happen. They were going to use the surplus from the increased yields to export and use that money to buy machinery necessary for industrialization. Due to mitigating factors like the droughts as well as peasant resistance they actually saw a marked decrease in the crop yields. That didn't stop them from seizing said crops and exporting them any way in order to buy industrial machinery. If you don't see why that leads to more people starving then I dunno what to tell you pal. Additionally china had the largest famine in human history when they tried to mimick the soviet 5 year plan. Just a coincidence, I'm sure... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And no, I don't think collectivization on it's own leads to a lack of resources. |
Quote:
Even then, it's not hard to understand why anybody wouldn't want to give up private ownership in the first place when all they've known revolves around that idea. |
I don't really get it. How much of the manifesto did Lenin write? Because the manifesto very clearly states that capitalism is important when it comes to industrializing a country to the point where socialism is viable.
After China failed by making the same exact mistake even they said "we shouldn't have skipped capitalism" because they're Marxist. Lenin literally helped write the goddamn book they got that from. Is Lenin stupid or something? Edit: There is literally only 3 things that The Communist Manifesto makes clear. 1) Capitalism is **** and we need a new revolution to save us from the oppression of capitalism. 2) But we actually needed capitalism to save us from feudalism and introduce industry to provide us with an abundance to make utopia viable. 3) Our revolution has to come from the proletariat because bourgeois socialism is a wolf in sheep's clothing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm still not getting where you're going with that. |
They didn't have the supply to feed their people so they had to beg the US to give them some food.
If they had the food to feed people why wouldn't they? How would collectivizing, in it's self, prevent them from having enough food to feed people? NOW I understand that it's because they exported food, but that's not collectivization in it's self causing the famine it's what they did with it. |
Quote:
In a perfect utopia where farmers simply willingly gave up their owership of property to the government, that would only solve one problem (successful kulak peasants burning their fields and slaughtering their livestock in revolt) - another problem is that of distribution. With the USSR being a centrally planned economy, that is one of the cruxes of the issues. With the five year plan, the government came up with projections and figures based on current agricultural productivity that were optimistic, to put it generously. They indeed expected their policies of collectivization would increase agricultural productivity and result in a surplus, which would be used to pay for industrialization while maintaining the crop yields the people have had in recent times. Instead, the policy was a failure and resulted in much less agricultural productivity. The Soviet Union still used much of what they had to pay for industrialization, at the expense of human lives. So contrary to your point there, even if they hadn't decided to export the yields they got, the extremely diminished agricultural productivity (caused in large part by collectivization) would've still resulted in famine. |
But how?
You're not explaining how collectivizing in it's self caused a lack of resources, just what they did with the resources once they collected them. Resources don't just magically disappear when you gather them together. If distributed properly at most it thins it out across the population. So it wouldn't be collectivization in it's self but what they did when they gathered all of their resources. Like selling the resources to build industry. Or am I missing something? |
Quote:
Central planning does not do an effective job at reacting to local conditions. Those in power did not understand to the extent that they needed to properly plan for the plots of the land that they used in collectivized farming, unlike the local farmers that previously owned those plots of lands. They had a prototypical set up that they used that was cookie-cutter pasted across the country without regards or changes to best capitalize on local conditions. Most of the time, party members made decisions on the collectivized farms, even if they weren't the best qualified ones to make those decisions. Another problem with big collectivized farms is that they were almost all met with diseconomy of scale issues (whereas the Soviet party members believed it would be an economy of scale). What this meant in practice is that these big collective farms produced less food per worker than the smaller farms did. The problems caused by the large collectivized farms were greater than the benefits that the party higher ups imagined there would be. Obviously, that's not an economically effective model in the long run. Not to mention, if I recall correctly, many of the people in charge of these collectivized farming operations were no strangers to fudging numbers to "meet" production quotas - lest they wished to be punished. In short, my position is that locally owned private farms would have produced more resources in the timeframe than collectivized farms did - it's just that the yields wouldn't have been in control of the state - which would've made it harder for them to use as exports to fund rapid industrialization - which was the whole point anyway. EDIT: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I guess he's thinking of What Is to Be Done?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism |
Dictators love their pseudoscience.
Edit: That's why OH thinks agency is scientifically disproven. Ohhhhhhhhhh I brought it full circle. |
If the circle is your gaping anus.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And so those college kids were like hey this isn't working so why don't we just start planting bombs to kill rich people? ? |
Quote:
He had a fairly well articulated interpretation of marxism.. and he saw a clear opportunity for revolution in 1917... He was fully aware the conditions in russia weren't ideal but when you see a window you either take it or sit back and hope the country will gradually industrialize through capitalism and then another window will arise. You willing to make that bet? A window hasn't arisen in any of the other countries that allowed the stage of capitalism to take its course... Still waiting. Like the Christians still waiting for Jesus to come back. Before you call lenin or even the bolsheviks in general stupid put yourself in their shoes and tell me how you usher 1917 russia into a successful communist utopia... |
Strictly regulated private industry like China is doing right now.
Or Vietnam. Both have gone through significant growth in doing so. Oh, and perhaps don't be so authoritarian and consider the rights of the people that the ideology is built around. |
China is no less authoritarian than the soviets lol
They're just more capitalist |
Quote:
The soviets banned good music which is much worse than the Holodomor. |
Yeah it's just you contradicted yourself... Be like China except less authoritarian... Basically western capitalism?
Keep in mind the question was how to usher in communism. You really think China is any closer to that goal than the soviets ever were?? |
Quote:
Right now? No. Because they started over. But they have more of an advantage than the Soviets did when they first started. Are you arguing that the USSR industrialized better than modern China? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:19 PM. |
© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.