NationStates Jolt Archive

I've often seen people talk about Soviet Russia as proof of how utterly unsuccessful communism was, how it was massively inefficient and so on. What i'd like to know is - was Russia a superpower before communism? Did it have a good economy? Military power?

I ask because I genuinely am ignorant about Russian history, and on a different forum a person arguing for communism said that Russia was a really backward, agriculturally based country and that communism failed because A) Russia was in a crappy state to begin with, and B) They devoted 30% of the economy to the military to compete with the US, a massive drain on resources - nothing to do with inherant flaws in the system. I would like to know how true that is - is he right or just bullshitting? If he is telling the truth, does this mean that communism might have being more successful if it ever occurred in an already developed country which didn't have to support an expensive military? Please note I am not a communist, and this is not a discussion about how moral communism is - just how empirically successful it could be.

It pretty much collapsed during WW1. Before that it had been embarassed militarily by Japan (IIRC in 1905) and one or two other countries. Economically it was nowhere near as industrialised as the rest of Europe.

Granted, it was somewhat regressed, however industrialisation was increasing immeasurably, whilst the progression from autocracy to democracy was, if not willingly, then grudgingly being undertook.

Granted, it was somewhat regressed, however industrialisation was increasing immeasurably, whilst the progression from autocracy to democracy was, if not willingly, then grudgingly being undertook.
Assuming he's talking about the October revolution, then the progression to democracy really kicked off with the February revolution.

Granted, it was somewhat regressed, however industrialisation was increasing immeasurably, whilst the progression from autocracy to democracy was, if not willingly, then grudgingly being undertook.haha:D ...

Politician Talk...all form...no substance...

It was because of the Radical Bolshevik party that Communism went into effect. Beforehand, Russia had collapsed but was on the way to reform and a parliamentary democracy.

It pretty much collapsed during WW1. Before that it had been embarassed militarily by Japan (IIRC in 1905) and one or two other countries. Economically it was nowhere near as industrialised as the rest of Europe.

Also internally unstable. Though the secret police were quite good at infiltrating socialist groups, to the extent that it was realised that at one meeting, everyone in the cell was a secret agent.

haha:D ...

Politician Talk...all form...no substance...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Pot. Kettle. Black.Do you mean a talk like a Politician?

I don't pretend to say something without real base...and when I bring something to the Table..I always have my Facts ready to Back my talk...

Do you mean a talk like a Politician?

I don't pretend to say something without real base...and when I bring something to the Table..I always have my Facts ready to Back my talk...

No, you don't. You're someone who has never been anywhere or done anything real yet.

It pretty much collapsed during WW1. Before that it had been embarassed militarily by Japan (IIRC in 1905) and one or two other countries. Economically it was nowhere near as industrialised as the rest of Europe.

Nope, just Japan actually. The Japanese Navy managed to sink nearly the entire Russian fleet, too.

Do you mean a talk like a Politician?

I don't pretend to say something without real base...and when I bring something to the Table..I always have my Facts ready to Back my talk...For me the Bottom line is simple...

I is very unlikely that Russia would have become a rich European country...they simply did not have the Industry level of the Rich ones...

They were at the level of Poland or even lower...

You can use "politician talk" to paint over the window in a way the real world looks brighter...rose..
But its just an illusion...

before the revolution russia sucked. it was barely out of the feudal era. in the philosophy of marx, russia was in no way ready for a communist revolution because it had yet to go through the capitalist phase.

this is why lenin came up with the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was supposed to kind of boost russia over the capitalist phase right into the communist one. this is what justified the dictatorship that the soviet union ended up as. if it had been "ready", in theory, russia would have become the workers paradise that marx's theory predicted.

Hmm. So it seems communism didn't screw up Russia like it is often said to have done, since it was already screwed up, just screwed under a different system.

Has communism ever occurred in an already well developed country? I know China and Vietnam weren't exactly advanced before, but what about any other communist places like Cuba?

If he is telling the truth, does this mean that communism might have being more successful if it ever occurred in an already developed country which didn't have to support an expensive military? Please note I am not a communist, and this is not a discussion about how moral communism is - just how empirically successful it could be.
The revolution in Russia was based on the work of Marx and Engels. Marx said that a proletariat revolution would only work in an industrialised country - he was thinking of England, Germany or France.
If Russia hadn't decided to support its military to the extent it did, or compete with the USA on just about everything - Khrushchev (I think) is quoted as saying "We can put a man in space, but our refrigerators don't work" - then Communism may have worked better. Please note I haven't said it would have worked.
In a developed country, they would still have had to fund the military, as America was politically opposed to Communism, and so would have attempted to intimidate any Communist country...even the UK.
In truth, Communism would almost certainly never work, because it relies on something that is pretty much fundamentally against human nature - sharing. If you want to see a small scale demonstration on why Communism wouldn't work, give 20 people £100 each at the start of the month, then go back at the end of the month, and see who has what. Some would have less, others more, because some people are naturally generous or altruistic, while others are greedy or tight with money.

Also internally unstable. Though the secret police were quite good at infiltrating socialist groups, to the extent that it was realised that at one meeting, everyone in the cell was a secret agent.

Do you know more about that particular episode? Or have a link somewhere about it? I just think that sounds like a great story, and I want to know more:)

A few years back, a massive amount of color photographies were unearthed. They were from the trip a photographer took in the name of the Czar to document all the peoples of the Empire. They should give a pretty good impression of what Russia looked like before the revolution.

Come on, there must be at least one well developed nation that tried out communism, surely?

Come on, there must be at least one well developed nation that tried out communism, surely?
Nope, not full-blown communism. There have been welfare states created, but that is simply called "social democracy."

Russia had serfs up until 1861.
I think that says a lot about Russia.

During the cretaceous period, russia was predominantly ruled by some of the most feared dinosaurs out there, including but not limited to velociraptors as well as Deinonychii. We'd be safe to call it a superpower...

>_>

During the cretaceous period, russia was predominantly ruled by some of the most feared dinosaurs out there, including but not limited to velociraptors as well as Deinonychii. We'd be safe to call it a superpower...

>_>Lol. This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

You're probably right. So I guess those people who say that Communism made Russia a superpower were mistaken.

Russia had serfs up until 1861.
I think that says a lot about Russia.
What says more about Russia is that the majority of them were better off before emancipation...

Before the Russian Revolution, Russia was a HAPPY place. They had flowery meadows, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!

And you could take the Rainbow Bridge from Moscow to St. Petersburg.

A few years back, a massive amount of color photographies were unearthed. They were from the trip a photographer took in the name of the Czar to document all the peoples of the Empire. They should give a pretty good impression of what Russia looked like before the revolution.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
Here's a few.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
Here's a few.

Shit, it's like looking back into the 18th century or something! Wow, never knew they had colour photos this good from that period, and it looks just like pictures of old cotton mills and peasants harvesting from history books brought to life. Russia really WAS backward before the revolution. I don't understand what people mean when they say communism was so unsuccessful - any country which becomes a world superpower so quickly from that state can't have being that much of an utter screw up. Not saying it's right, after all Facism was pretty good for Germany...as long as you weren't a minority.

Shit, it's like looking back into the 18th century or something! Wow, never knew they had colour photos this good from that period, and it looks just like pictures of old cotton mills and peasants harvesting from history books brought to life. Russia really WAS backward before the revolution. I don't understand what people mean when they say communism was so unsuccessful - any country which becomes a world superpower so quickly from that state can't have being that much of an utter screw up. Not saying it's right, after all Facism was pretty good for Germany...as long as you weren't a minority.

Indeed, but the price was staggering. Russia never practuced "communism", it was state-capitalism( South Korea and Taiwan had a similar statagy)

The state owned the means of production in order to make a profit. This profit was used to fuel more rapid industral and military expansion. Wages were cut to gain more profits for the state. Stalin's industralization was brutal and ruthless

"The elimination of dissent began with expulsions from the Bolshevik party in 1927. Then came sweeping arrests.In the mid-1930s a wave of 'show trials' led to the slaughter of the original Bolshevik leaders of the revolution. But the most astounding and gruesome form of repression came in the slave labour camps. By 1931, two million people had found their way into these camps. By 1933, the figure was five million. In 1942 it reached a staggering 15 million.

The destruction of the remnants of workers' democracy proceeded apace. Strikes were outlawed in 1928. After 1930 workers were no longer allowed to change jobs without state permission. Trade unions were reduced to bureaucratic playthings controlled by the state. Other democratic reforms of the revolution were buried. Access to divorce was severely curtailed. Abortion was made illegal. Homosexuality, made legal with the revolution, was once again made a criminal offence. A regime of police terror prevailed.

In 1929, the first Five-Year Plan was introduced. The aim Stalin announced, was to 'catch up and overtake' the West. In order to take control of food production, several million peasants were slaughtered. In the towns, workers' wages were cut in half between 1930 and 1937. A rate of growth of 40 per cent was declared. Such a growth rate could only be achieved through ruthless exploitation of the working class--by forcing workers to produce more and more output for lower and lower wages. "

One reason why the revolution was popular (to start with) in Russia is because the bulk of the people were poor and miserable. Serfs, essentially, even though they got their 'freedom' in the 1860s. There was a small noble class that owned most of the land and supported the tsars and a newly forming bourgeoise class made up of merchants, intellectuals, the newly rich, military officers, etc, that were heavily influenced by French salon culture. Upper class Russians before the revolution sent their sons to France to be educated, or hired French tutors. Which is why the whole revolution thing was popular amongst the bourgeois - salon culture imported the idea of Marxism.

Oh and there was a big mystical, spiritual thing going on too, not necessarily religious, but that's where Rasputin comes in. He really was something of a cult figure, and all the salon ladies found him most impressive.

Go pick up War and Peace, Anna Karenina, or practically anything else by Tolstoy if you can handle that long a read. You'll get an excellent feel for late tsarist Russia.

http://www.ltolstoy.com/etext/index.html

Indeed, but the price was staggering. Russia never practuced "communism", it was state-capitalism( South Korea and Taiwan had a similar statagy)

The state owned the means of production in order to make a profit. This profit was used to fuel more rapid industral and military expansion. Wages were cut to gain more profits for the state. Stalin's industralization was brutal and ruthless

"The elimination of dissent began with expulsions from the Bolshevik party in 1927. Then came sweeping arrests.In the mid-1930s a wave of 'show trials' led to the slaughter of the original Bolshevik leaders of the revolution. But the most astounding and gruesome form of repression came in the slave labour camps. By 1931, two million people had found their way into these camps. By 1933, the figure was five million. In 1942 it reached a staggering 15 million.

The destruction of the remnants of workers' democracy proceeded apace. Strikes were outlawed in 1928. After 1930 workers were no longer allowed to change jobs without state permission. Trade unions were reduced to bureaucratic playthings controlled by the state. Other democratic reforms of the revolution were buried. Access to divorce was severely curtailed. Abortion was made illegal. Homosexuality, made legal with the revolution, was once again made a criminal offence. A regime of police terror prevailed.

In 1929, the first Five-Year Plan was introduced. The aim Stalin announced, was to 'catch up and overtake' the West. In order to take control of food production, several million peasants were slaughtered. In the towns, workers' wages were cut in half between 1930 and 1937. A rate of growth of 40 per cent was declared. Such a growth rate could only be achieved through ruthless exploitation of the working class--by forcing workers to produce more and more output for lower and lower wages. "

The means, the ends...

Indeed, but the price was staggering. Russia never practuced "communism", it was state-capitalism( South Korea and Taiwan had a similar statagy)

-Snip-


I agree, it was undoubtedly a horrible regime to live under. However, I don't see why people cite Soviet Russia as an example of communism failing. Of course it failed - it was starting from way behind the countries it was trying to compete with. Say if America was isolationist and didn't care what Russia did as long as it kept to itself, meaning they didn't need a massive military, and they were realistic about steady progress as opposed to trying to overtake the west in industry and technology - it could have used the money instead to pay people properly and provide good education and healthcare.

One reason why the revolution was popular (to start with) in Russia is because the bulk of the people were poor and miserable. Serfs, essentially, even though they got their 'freedom' in the 1860s. There was a small noble class that owned most of the land and supported the tsars and a newly forming bourgeoise class made up of merchants, intellectuals, the newly rich, military officers, etc, that were heavily influenced by French salon culture. Upper class Russians before the revolution sent their sons to France to be educated, or hired French tutors. Which is why the whole revolution thing was popular amongst the bourgeois - salon culture imported the idea of Marxism.

Oh and there was a big mystical, spiritual thing going on too, not necessarily religious, but that's where Rasputin comes in. He really was something of a cult figure, and all the salon ladies found him most impressive.

Go pick up War and Peace, Anna Karenina, or practically anything else by Tolstoy if you can handle that long a read. You'll get an excellent feel for late tsarist Russia.

http://www.ltolstoy.com/etext/index.html

And why was the French culture valued by the Russians? Why did the Russians send their children to France, to be educated? It's the same reason that people send their children to Oxford to be educated nowadays.

Excellent point about the reason of marxism being accepted by the bourgios, however we must remember there were certainly external forces that brought in this "idea." It didn't just start in the Russian society as a popular idea amongst the peasantry/bourgios.

Rasputin still claimed to be of the "church." Haha, however he did little to show this fact, other than healing the czar's son when he bled(not quite sure on his method, don't think it has been discovered to this day). He was a consumate seducer for sure.

War and peace is a biased novel of an anti-czarist view point. I've read the original, it's a great piece. But I wouldn't necessarily call it so accurate for depicting pre-communist Russia.

Honestly, Russia was behind in many aspects, however it's potential was there and I think it probably would have been better off with the transition from monarchy-->const. monarchy, which was on its way before the outbreak of the revolution. I mean, look where communism left Russia now?

I've often seen people talk about Soviet Russia as proof of how utterly unsuccessful communism was, how it was massively inefficient and so on. What i'd like to know is - was Russia a superpower before communism? Did it have a good economy? Military power?

I ask because I genuinely am ignorant about Russian history, and on a different forum a person arguing for communism said that Russia was a really backward, agriculturally based country and that communism failed because A) Russia was in a crappy state to begin with, and B) They devoted 30% of the economy to the military to compete with the US, a massive drain on resources - nothing to do with inherant flaws in the system. I would like to know how true that is - is he right or just bullshitting? If he is telling the truth, does this mean that communism might have being more successful if it ever occurred in an already developed country which didn't have to support an expensive military? Please note I am not a communist, and this is not a discussion about how moral communism is - just how empirically successful it could be.

It's widely accpeted that Russia was a great power before the revolution.

Saying that, it was still horrilble, being full of Russians.

Russia was a great european power after the conclusion of the great northern war (1725) which collapsed the swedish empire under Charles XII and opended Russia to western europe. So it´s right, Russia was a late-comer to Modern europe, from that time up to the revolution (1918) it was a mix of autocratic, medieval rule, western bourgoise culture and a largely agricultural economy and society. This still-open gap led to the collapse in WW1, like in the old Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy. Russia ascended to superpower status in the time from the end of WW1 to WW2 mostly because the collapse/decline of the former "great powers" France, Britain and Germany

...
Honestly, Russia was behind in many aspects, however it's potential was there and I think it probably would have been better off with the transition from monarchy-->const. monarchy, which was on its way before the outbreak of the revolution. I mean, look where communism left Russia now?
We would have been better off if the transition had been effected. Unfortunately, Nicholas II and his premiers missed the chance.

... I mean, look where communism left Russia now?...I look at Russia ...and I look at China...

and I Have to ask what the hell happened to your Country?

Today The US is keeps borrowing money from China...(we will soon be dependent...like junkies)

So China is doing good...But Russia? You guys cant pay for the Toilet-Paper!!

What the hell happened to you guys?...Compared to China.

...I look at Russia ...and I look at China...

and I Have to ask what the hell happened to your Country?

Today The US is keeps borrowing money from China...(we will soon be dependent...like junkies)

So China is doing good...But Russia? You guys cant pay for the Toilet-Paper!!

What the hell happened to you guys?...Compared to China.

Actually, everything's OK with toilet paper here-- oil is expensive today.:)

73 years of the Communist party government is too much for any country. Russia is no different. It has been a prolonged period of decline for our country, and it continues now.

I've often seen people talk about Soviet Russia as proof of how utterly unsuccessful communism was, how it was massively inefficient and so on. What i'd like to know is - was Russia a superpower before communism? Did it have a good economy? Military power?

I ask because I genuinely am ignorant about Russian history, and on a different forum a person arguing for communism said that Russia was a really backward, agriculturally based country and that communism failed because A) Russia was in a crappy state to begin with, and B) They devoted 30% of the economy to the military to compete with the US, a massive drain on resources - nothing to do with inherant flaws in the system. I would like to know how true that is - is he right or just bullshitting? If he is telling the truth, does this mean that communism might have being more successful if it ever occurred in an already developed country which didn't have to support an expensive military? Please note I am not a communist, and this is not a discussion about how moral communism is - just how empirically successful it could be.
Russia was, is, and always will be a weird place. That holds out for the pre-Revolution days. Actually, there were two revolutions, but more on that later.
A few decades earlier, Tsar Alexander II emancipated the serfs. He was assasinated, and his son (I think Nicolas I) turned Russia into a police state. It remained that way until the near revolution, the so called "Bloody Sunday" of 1905. I can't remember the specifics, but it started out simply asking the Tsar for help, with the protestors revering him as a father figure. It ended with Russian troops firing into the crowd.
By 1917, Russia was close to being overrun by the Germans. That's what sparked the first revolution, the one I bet you aren't talking about. It simply removed the tsar in favor of a republic. The republic lasted six months, when, as I assume you're talking about, the Bolsheviks, a minority in the Duma (or their legislature), engineered a coup, and the next few years were, shall we say, fun for everyone.