What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

You have not been following Jos' posts that closely.  For that I forgive you.

You are responding now to points I never made.  That's the strawman argument logical fallacy.

You see Gorby was really just misunderstood and it's all down to propaganda.  Don't worry about the people he caused to be killed.  Nothing to see here.

Another strawman fallacy.  You aren't very good at this, despite your extensive practice.

[The Brain]

I don't think Vietnam counts as incredibly powerful or invader.

Empire of Japan, ever hear of it?

I hear it invaded China in the era before the PRC.

[crazy canuck]

Just because Russia wasn't a perfect free market before USSR doesn't mean that there weren't freedoms lost during the transition.  One of the reason so many peasants had to die is because a lot of them really, really didn't want to hand over all their cows and land to kolkhozes.

I mean, Tsarist Russia wasn't materially free market at all. The vast majority of peasants didn't own the land they worked on and had very limited ability to do much of anything other than what they were born into. The fact that some of them got killed is no different all from under the Tsars--whose policies often required the death of large numbers of peasants as well.

Your post also ignores that frankly, the peasants overwhelmingly supported the Communist revolution. Whether they supported the Bolsheviks is more complex.

It should also be noted that there are many ways to skin the Marxist cat, lots of Marxist movements didn't favor forced collectivization or things like that, either. A significant portion of Marxist theory ends up being a poor basis for running a country, but I find no real compelling argument it is a major source of autocracy. Autocracy is born of societies that don't believe people should have a say in how those societies are ran, and that largely accept massive killings and punishments to enforce the rules. This describes the sort of person who is a Russian to a tee, same goes for Chinese as well. This isn't an easy thing to change, and people will wrangle up different explanations as to why that is in different circumstances.

Frankly, in many respects after 75 years of Communism I think Russia, China and its actual people were far better off under Communist rule than they had been previously. Now, the contra-example--we don't know what the unfree archaic forms of government Russia / China had pre-Communism would have developed into had they not been overthrown. Maybe they too would have brought modernity and quality of life improvements to their populace, but what we do know is large swathes of Russia and China were indistinguishable from the Middle Ages when Communists took power, and under Communism both countries fought off incredibly dangerous and powerful invaders, and both industrialized and modernized across the board.

Russia seems to have been on the road to modernity before the Bolshevik's took power.  The interesting what if is the Duma resisting the Bolshevik power grab and becoming a democratic institution.

[Sheilbh]

Russia seems to have been on the road to modernity before the Bolshevik's took power.  The interesting what it is the Duma resisting the Bolshevik power grab and becoming a democratic institution.

I'm not sure we can say. I think in a revolutionary situation with all of the turmoil and tumult of revolution, like 1917-8 in Russia, that you can clearly say there is a path Russia's on. I think it's all contingency and possibility - everything is open (as the Bolsheviks showed).

Also not sure I'd contrast the Soviets with modernity - I think they're an avowedly modernist and modernising project.

[crazy canuck]

Russia seems to have been on the road to modernity before the Bolshevik's took power.  The interesting what it is the Duma resisting the Bolshevik power grab and becoming a democratic institution.

I'm not sure we can say. I think in a revolutionary situation with all of the turmoil and tumult of revolution, like 1917-8 in Russia, that you can clearly say there is a path Russia's on. I think it's all contingency and possibility - everything is open (as the Bolsheviks showed).

Also not sure I'd contrast the Soviets with modernity - I think they're an avowedly modernist and modernising project.

Pre-revolution I would agree with your assessment of the Bolshevik's wishing to modernize.  That is after all how they were supposed to shift from the dictatorship of the proletariat into a communist state.  But after they took power, maintaining power and strengthening the dictatorship was the over riding goal.

[The Brain]

Finland provides an interesting illustration. Sweden lost it to Russia in 1809. Sweden in those days was a poor country, and Finland was a poor part of Sweden. It was part of Russia (though not fully made into a core province) until 1917-18 when it broke away and didn't form part of the Soviet Union. It was forced to fight costly wars against the Communists, and after WW2 pay significant war reparations. Travelling through Finland to Leningrad in 1991 the difference in modernity between Finland and the Soviet Union was striking, with Finland decades ahead.

[Oexmelin]

Modernity is a pretty polysemic word. When Sheilbh is using it as "modernizing project", it really is about rethinking the relationship between humans, nature, and the purpose of the State. It encompasses more than only economic development.

[The Brain]

Modernity is a pretty polysemic word. When Sheilbh is using it as "modernizing project", it really is about rethinking the relationship between humans, nature, and the purpose of the State. It encompasses more than only economic development.

And Finland was decades ahead. The Soviet Union had the old-school concept of people as subjects, not citizens. The purpose of the state old-school resource extraction for the elite, not societal well-being. Etc.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I hear it invaded China in the era before the PRC.

Sounds like you may have missed a few days in your Chinese history class, maybe better luck next time.

Finland provides an interesting illustration. Sweden lost it to Russia in 1809. Sweden in those days was a poor country, and Finland was a poor part of Sweden. It was part of Russia (though not fully made into a core province) until 1917-18 when it broke away and didn't form part of the Soviet Union. It was forced to fight costly wars against the Communists, and after WW2 pay significant war reparations. Travelling through Finland to Leningrad in 1991 the difference in modernity between Finland and the Soviet Union was striking, with Finland decades ahead.

I'm not 100% sure what the value in anecdotes from 1991 are, this is a window into two very different societies that had been ran very, very differently for over 75 years at that point. It isn't a meaningful window into whether Russia would have been better off keeping the Tsar or not--because what we don't have as a comparison is "Russia without the Soviet era", and of course we also in your anecdote are not comparing Russia in 1917 to Finland in 1917. I'm not sold, without supporting evidence, that Finland started off worse than Russia in terms of development in '17 and then surpassed it, that assumes evidence not presented.

Modernity is a pretty polysemic word. When Sheilbh is using it as "modernizing project", it really is about rethinking the relationship between humans, nature, and the purpose of the State. It encompasses more than only economic development.

And Finland was decades ahead. The Soviet Union had the old-school concept of people as subjects, not citizens. The purpose of the state old-school resource extraction for the elite, not societal well-being. Etc.

What does "decades ahead" mean? Like the cities were prettier? Detroit and Cleveland are rusted out shitholes, but I wouldn't say they are "decades behind" New York City or Miami. They just have urban blight. What aspects of modern development was St. Petersburg "decades behind" Finland in?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Interesting tidbit--in 1913 world industrial production was as follows:

U.S. - 35.8%
U.K. - 14.0%
Germany - 15.7%
France - 6.4%
Russia - 5.3%

At this time Russia generated around 2 billion kWh of electricity.

By 1932 Russia had multiplied this 7 fold to 13.5 billion kWh.

By 1941 the Soviet Union had taken the #2 spot in the world for industrial output, second only to the United States.

Agriculture was 57% of the Russian economy in 1913, industry 43%, by 1933 industry was 70% of the economy.

There was also a massive expansion of education--in the decade ending 1940 alone, the number of technical schools and engineering schools quadrupled.

Considering the many ways the Soviets had to obliterate a number of traditional Russian economic practices, and how beholden the Tsarist regime was to those practices, I am extremely skeptical any form of Tsarist Russia could have replicated these results in the time between the Russian Revolution and the outbreak of WW2.

[The Brain]

Sounds like you may have missed a few days in your Chinese history class, maybe better luck next time.

I don't follow.

'm not 100% sure what the value in anecdotes from 1991 are, this is a window into two very different societies that had been ran very, very differently for over 75 years at that point. It isn't a meaningful window into whether Russia would have been better off keeping the Tsar or not--because what we don't have as a comparison is "Russia without the Soviet era", and of course we also in your anecdote are not comparing Russia in 1917 to Finland in 1917. I'm not sold, without supporting evidence, that Finland started off worse than Russia in terms of development in '17 and then surpassed it, that assumes evidence not presented.

They had indeed run very very differently for more than 70 years. That's kinda the point.

What does "decades ahead" mean? Like the cities were prettier? Detroit and Cleveland are rusted out shitholes, but I wouldn't say they are "decades behind" New York City or Miami. They just have urban blight. What aspects of modern development was St. Petersburg "decades behind" Finland in?

Finland was a modern early 90s country. In the Soviet Union things were like a movie from the 1930s. From groups of soldiers with scythes at work in the fields to very primitive post offices and what have you.

[crazy canuck]

Modernity is a pretty polysemic word. When Sheilbh is using it as "modernizing project", it really is about rethinking the relationship between humans, nature, and the purpose of the State. It encompasses more than only economic development.

Yes, and that is why his claim the Bolsheviks post taking power were engaged in a modernizing project is highly problematic.  They were using tried and true terror tactics to maintain power.  People often try to put lipstick on that pig but it's not very persuasive.

[crazy canuck]

Interesting tidbit--in 1913 world industrial production was as follows:

U.S. - 35.8%
U.K. - 14.0%
Germany - 15.7%
France - 6.4%
Russia - 5.3%

At this time Russia generated around 2 billion kWh of electricity.

By 1932 Russia had multiplied this 7 fold to 13.5 billion kWh.

By 1941 the Soviet Union had taken the #2 spot in the world for industrial output, second only to the United States.

Agriculture was 57% of the Russian economy in 1913, industry 43%, by 1933 industry was 70% of the economy.

There was also a massive expansion of education--in the decade ending 1940 alone, the number of technical schools and engineering schools quadrupled.

Considering the many ways the Soviets had to obliterate a number of traditional Russian economic practices, and how beholden the Tsarist regime was to those practices, I am extremely skeptical any form of Tsarist Russia could have replicated these results in the time between the Russian Revolution and the outbreak of WW2.

The thought experiment involves the post revolution and pre Bolshevik takeover.

[Sheilbh]

Modernity is a pretty polysemic word. When Sheilbh is using it as "modernizing project", it really is about rethinking the relationship between humans, nature, and the purpose of the State. It encompasses more than only economic development.

Yes.

And I think to CC's point that I'd slightly disagree. From what I've read and I'm not an expert, I think I'd say post-civil war to Khrushchev's removal the USSR is engaged in a modernising project (as you describe) as its primary goal and it's a revolutionary project - and possibly, arguably (which Jos might hate too) that means the most "Communist" phase of the USSR is also its most repressive and cruel.

Then with Brezhnev and Chernenko you have leaders who are basically conservatives and it's about stability and preserving the state as they conceive it. Andropov starts to attempt and then Gorbachev starts again on modernisation (in different directions and ways), which ultimately destabilises and destroys the USSR.

At this time Russia generated around 2 billion kWh of electricity.

By 1932 Russia had multiplied this 7 fold to 13.5 billion kWh.

What's the Lenin line? Soviet power plus electrification is communism.

Considering the many ways the Soviets had to obliterate a number of traditional Russian economic practices, and how beholden the Tsarist regime was to those practices, I am extremely skeptical any form of Tsarist Russia could have replicated these results in the time between the Russian Revolution and the outbreak of WW2.

Yeah although the other thing is how rapidly and violently, if unevenly, late Tsarist Russia was industrialising - I seem to remember reading somehwere that it was one of the fastest growing economies in the world with heavy industry growing particularly rapidly.

This may be way off base but from what I remember reading it reminded me of what you'd read about China in the 80s and 90s where you have cities like St Petersburg or the Donbas region which were islands of modernity, like Shanghai or the Pearl River delta, but surrounded by huge swathes of barely developed peasantry in the countryside.

[Josquius]

Yes.

And I think to CC's point that I'd slightly disagree. From what I've read and I'm not an expert, I think I'd say post-civil war to Khrushchev's removal the USSR is engaged in a modernising project (as you describe) as its primary goal and it's a revolutionary project - and possibly, arguably (which Jos might hate too) that means the most "Communist" phase of the USSR is also its most repressive and cruel.

Then with Brezhnev and Chernenko you have leaders who are basically conservatives and it's about stability and preserving the state as they conceive it. Andropov starts to attempt and then Gorbachev starts again on modernisation (in different directions and ways), which ultimately destabilises and destroys the USSR.

I think thats unfair. Its also has echos in modern democratic politics with the whines of the far left about more moderate left wing policies in - that the more centre left politicians don't want to live in a perfect communist utopia and actually want to keep things as they are.
Usually they're just as ideologically committed, they're just a lot more small c conservative about what is the best way to get there.
As much as communism in 20 years was a lovely slogan and a noble dream, and arguably dreams are all the USSR really had to run on, it was clearly unrealistic. Even with god-mode rule over the country its hard to see how it could have been delivered.
As to which was worse between the two....pass.

You have not been following Jos' posts that closely.  For that I forgive you.

You see Gorby was really just misunderstood and it's all down to propaganda.  Don't worry about the people he caused to be killed.  Nothing to see here.

I think you're the one who hasn't been following my posts closely. I've been pretty clear in every post the soviet union was obviously bad and we're just talking degrees of shit here.

Actually everyone else has been trying to explain that very point to you.  You have essentially repeated Zoupa's earlier post in which he asked again what argument you were making.

So yes. You haven't been following the thread.
Though you are heavily backing up my original point with all this.