Register to Comment
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 167
Like Tree50Likes
  1. #21
    Hillmanhunter1 Hillmanhunter1 is online now
    Hillmanhunter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,174

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanrickard View Post
    All countries should be democratic. It makes them wealthier, healthier,freer and safer.
    Not true - democracy has only made us wealthier, healthier, freer and safer.

    India is a case in point where a system of government that is not indigenous arguably has contributed to sclerosis.

    With every year that passes the citizens of China enjoy more wealth, health, freedom(albeit not political) and safety, without western style democracy.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    Fr. Hank Tree Fr. Hank Tree is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    9,917

    Quote Originally Posted by Hillmanhunter1 View Post
    or did you not see those?
    I saw what you referenced and you didn't reference the church. It's a bit petty imo.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Mick Mac Mick Mac is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,352

    They had nothing to loose but their chains. It didn't end well thanks a lot to Stalin but as an idea it was hugely important and it's only 25 short years since it ended.

    The rampant neo liberal free trade, free movement, free for all world we live in is testimony that for all it's faults it called the nature of capitalists accurately.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    Hillmanhunter1 Hillmanhunter1 is online now
    Hillmanhunter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,174

    Quote Originally Posted by Fr. Hank Tree View Post
    I saw what you referenced and you didn't reference the church. It's a bit petty imo.
    Christian philosophy has shaped the development of democracy but in almost every situation the Church has sided with anti-democratic forces.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    eoghanacht eoghanacht is offline
    eoghanacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    37,364

    Quote Originally Posted by razorblade View Post
    Millions perished from the tyranny that followed but the left love that.
    And Feudal Russia was a utopia.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    razorblade razorblade is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5,801

    Quote Originally Posted by eoghanacht View Post
    And Feudal Russia was a utopia.
    One doesn't simply excuse the other but the fact is Bolshevik period was one of the most murderous in history.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    eoghanacht eoghanacht is offline
    eoghanacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    37,364

    Quote Originally Posted by razorblade View Post
    One doesn't simply excuse the other but the fact is Bolshevik period was one of the most murderous in history.
    I don't dispute that then again the Czarist regime didn't bother recording the deaths of mere peasants.

    I'd say it's fair to say they would have ran the Bolsheviks close on the numbers front.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    General Urko General Urko is offline
    General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    12,252

    I wonder how WW2 would have panned out with a Czarist rather than a Stallinist Russia/USSR involved?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    Dame_Enda Dame_Enda is offline
    Dame_Enda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    37,172

    Quote Originally Posted by eoghanacht View Post
    And Feudal Russia was a utopia.
    While the nobility and gentry still owned 50% of the Land, the system was no longer feudal since serfdom had been abolished in 1861 (1866 for State owned serfs). Problems were:.the serfs tended to get the less fertile soil and it wasn't good enough to support themselves. There was also a paupers-plot (one quarter of the Land you worked on- that you were given if you couldn't afford to buy the 50% that was offered. You also had to pay a "redemption tax" that many peasants couldn't afford. Plus if you were from a "mir" community, you couldn't keep the proceeds of selling land to move to the cities, because technically the "community" owned it. So the land reform was incomplete and the peasants were still unhappy.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    making waves making waves is offline
    making waves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    13,920

    Quote Originally Posted by Dame_Enda View Post
    There were two revolutions. The Tsar was overthrown in the February Revolution while the Provisional government was overthrown in the October revolution.

    Reasons for February revolution included anti war sentiment, food shortages, land ownership, opposition to regime from Socialists, and Social Revolutionaries. Reasons for the October revolution included the government being dominated by big landowners who wanted to stay in the war, plus being forced to depend on the Soviets (workers councils) for military support due to a revolt of conservative officers like Lavr Kornilov. This opened the door for the Bolsheviks to take power.
    Reasonably accurate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dame_Enda View Post
    Lenin allowed the elections for the constituent assembly to go ahead but closed the assembly when the Bolsheviks only won 25% of the vote.
    This is inaccurate - the October Revolution was the result of a mass movement led by the Bolsheviks but including support from the Socialist Revolutionaries. The Constituent Assembly elections were due to take place prior to Russian Revolution but had been postponed by the Provisional Government as a result of the attempted coup by Kornilov. The result of the election was a combined vote for the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks of 65%.

    However - the reality is that the political power in the post-revolutionary period rested not with the Constituent Assembly but with the Workers, Soldiers and Peasant Councils (the Soviets). The candidates for the SR that had been selected for the Constituent Assembly elections were selected early in 1917 and most had been removed from any positions of influence in the SR in the period after the July days when the Provisional Government with the assistance of the monarchists attempted to suppress the Bolsheviks and the SR. The Constituent Assembly as elected in respect of the SR was totally unrepresentative of the support base of the SR and as a political body was unable to exercise any political power. Within the Soviets the Bolsheviks had majority support and included the SR in the exercise of political power - between both parties in both the Soviets and the Constituent Assembly elections - the governments had greater support than any government that has ever been elected in this country.

    A similarity is like claiming that the IPP were relevant in Ireland after the 1918 general election because their six MPs sat in the House of Commons when, in reality, the House of Commons had little political support among the Irish population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dame_Enda View Post
    The White Movement started the next day,
    The White Movement was based on the monarchist army and had been developing since the February Revolution - the attempted coup by Kornilov was part of the White Movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dame_Enda View Post
    but it's armies were divided by huge distances and between absolute monarchists, constitutional monarchists, Mensheviks (breakaway group from Social Democrats), Social Revolutionaries, separatists in Central Asia and Georgia (which had a Menshevik government), and western and Japanese armies that intervened to support the White movement. There was also a strong Anarchist movement in Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno which switched to the Red side.
    The Socialist Revolutionaries split - the Right Socialist Revolutionaries (who had little political support) joined the White counter-revolution - the Left Socialist Revolutionaries supported the Bolsheviks. By the middle of 1918 the membership of the Left SR were moving in droves to join the Bolsheviks which led to the leadership of the Left SR attempting to provoke a conflict with Germany by assassinating German envoys who had been involved in the Brest-Litvosk negotiations. The Soviet leaders ordered the arrest of the Left SR leaders when they attempted to organise an uprising in July 1918.

    Subsequently the White Movement with the European Imperialist powers organised an invasion of Russia in an attempt to overthrow the workers state - they failed, in no small part due to the ability of Trotsky to organise the Red Army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dame_Enda View Post
    A big what-if is whether Tsar Alexander II, Nicholas's IIs grandson, could have saved the system or not. Alexander had abolished serfdom in 1866, but the terms involved the former serfs having to pay back their former owners at extortionate costs. He had also set up local councils called zemstvos. He allowed the Finnish Diet (parliament) to meet for the first time - something that had been promised 58 years earlier). He also planned elections but this experiment ended when he was assassinated and his reactionary son Alexander III came to power. He restricted the powers of the zemstvos but didn't scrap them as their support was needed during severe floods that the govt couldn't cope with.

    Tsar Nicholas II while a child was tutored by Pobedenstsev, who said "parliamentarianism is the great lie of our time". As Tsar he restricted the power of the Finnish diet and extended Russification there. Unlike Alexander III he was pro war. A defeat against Japan in 1905 led to mass demonstrations which forced him to summon a parliament called the Duma. But when it wa dominated by Far Right and Far Leftists, he changed the electoral law to keep out the Far Left and then even the Kadets party which was liberal monarchist. One of his Prime Ministers Piotr Stolypin (of whom Putin is reportedly a fan) pushed for more press freedom and industrialisation. But his plans for land reform ended when he was assassinated in a theatre. The imperial family refused to attend his funeral because he was anti-Rasputin. Officially he was assassinated by a leftist, but the Tsar shut down the investigation, leading to speculation someone in the regime was responsible.

    The Tsars personality was also a problem. In the Constitution of 1905 he promised to abide by the constitution but in practice when it didn't suit he did the opposite. He also publicly condemned anti Semitic pogroms while privately supporting them. The Okrana (secret police) wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
    All of which is of little relevance to the topic at hand.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment