Russia communists turn to Stalin to fight crisis

[Tranquilizer Cyborgs]

Marx and Engels wrote it in 1848 - some two decades before the Paris Commune. How could they have based it off of something that hadn't happened yet?

I don't think "dictatorship of the proletariat" appears in the Manifesto. It's more from the Gotha Program and the Civil War in France, I think.

[Milks Empire]

Marx and Engels wrote it in 1848 - some two decades before the Paris Commune. How could they have based it off of something that hadn't happened yet?

I don't think "dictatorship of the proletariat" appears in the Manifesto. It's more from the Gotha Program and the Civil War in France, I think.

Didn't Marx write a critique of the Gotha Program?

[Tranquilizer Cyborgs]

Marx and Engels wrote it in 1848 - some two decades before the Paris Commune. How could they have based it off of something that hadn't happened yet?

I don't think "dictatorship of the proletariat" appears in the Manifesto. It's more from the Gotha Program and the Civil War in France, I think.

Didn't Marx write a critique of the Gotha Program?

That's what I meant, yep...

[Non Aligned States]

Marx and Engels wrote it in 1848 - some two decades before the Paris Commune. How could they have based it off of something that hadn't happened yet?

Time travel. Someone's mucking around with the time stream again.

[Milks Empire]

I don't think "dictatorship of the proletariat" appears in the Manifesto. It's more from the Gotha Program and the Civil War in France, I think.

Didn't Marx write a critique of the Gotha Program?

That's what I meant, yep...

Ah. Now all the pieces fit together.

Marx and Engels wrote it in 1848 - some two decades before the Paris Commune. How could they have based it off of something that hadn't happened yet?

Time travel. Someone's mucking around with the time stream again.

Damned sorceresses. They just can't leave time alone. Always gotta compress it, you know?

[Tranquilizer Cyborgs]

Marx and Engels wrote it in 1848 - some two decades before the Paris Commune. How could they have based it off of something that hadn't happened yet?

Time travel. Someone's mucking around with the time stream again.

Did you hear about the time traveling blonde hippies smuggling high grade pot into ancient China?!?

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/544684

Researchers say they have located the world's oldest stash of marijuana, in a tomb in a remote part of China.

The cache of cannabis is about 2,700 years old and was clearly "cultivated for psychoactive purposes," rather than as fibre for clothing or as food, says a research paper in the Journal of Experimental Botany.

The 789 grams of dried cannabis was buried alongside a light-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian man, likely a shaman of the Gushi culture, near Turpan in northwestern China.

The marijuana was found to have a relatively high content of THC, the main active ingredient in cannabis, but the sample was too old to determine a precise percentage.

[Milks Empire]

Marx and Engels wrote it in 1848 - some two decades before the Paris Commune. How could they have based it off of something that hadn't happened yet?

Time travel. Someone's mucking around with the time stream again.

Did you hear about the time traveling blonde hippies smuggling high grade pot into ancient China?!?

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/544684

Researchers say they have located the world's oldest stash of marijuana, in a tomb in a remote part of China.

The cache of cannabis is about 2,700 years old and was clearly "cultivated for psychoactive purposes," rather than as fibre for clothing or as food, says a research paper in the Journal of Experimental Botany.

The 789 grams of dried cannabis was buried alongside a light-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian man, likely a shaman of the Gushi culture, near Turpan in northwestern China.

The marijuana was found to have a relatively high content of THC, the main active ingredient in cannabis, but the sample was too old to determine a precise percentage.

That's, like, so totally groovy, man.

[Allanea]

Well it's Russia they haven't had a stable government that is good to it's people since before the rise of the Tzar's.

Define "stable".

And Pavel I was prty nice.

[Non Aligned States]

Did you hear about the time traveling blonde hippies smuggling high grade pot into ancient China?!?

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/544684

I'm curious how they can determine the color of the eye. Even in dry conditions, the eye isn't likely to do anything but rot away to nothing in some 2000+ years.

[Dyakovo]

Can't see enough of the second word to be able to figure out what it is, but the first one "Победа" is victory...
Maybe someone who is actually fluent in Russian will come along and be more of a help...

"Будет" is what it looks like. Which is where I got my "going" from.

Yeah, I saw your response after I posted...

[Dyakovo]

Look at the Russian Empire circa 1917. Now look at the Soviet Union circa 1953.
Soviet Union 1953 > Russian Empire 1917
Sure, it wasn't Happyhappyfunland, but it was enough to take the Soviet Union from a backwards shithole to a superpower in just under 40 years. His policies worked. That said, I don't agree with them.

How can you call Stalin successful when his country was lagging behind the West? How is that successful? The US was doing all that the Soviet were and more. And this is all while the Soviets are yakking on about how much better their system was than the corrupt capitalism of the West.

If you SAY that you've got the best system in the world, while clearly not having it, you've failed.

The Soviet Union (and Russia previously) was lagging behind to begin with, the margin of difference was much less in 1953 than it was in 1917.

[Shawnaland]

Russia before Stalin was a backwards agricultural nation with almost no modern industry, by the end of his rule it was a super-power.

Explain to me how his policies did not work..

oh, where to begin.........

How about the millions of his own people he killed in order to enforce these policies?
Or the food lines which stretched literally for blocks to buy examples of meat (when meat was even available) and vegetables which anywhere in the US, Canada or Western Europe would have been in the dumpster?
Perhaps the years, sometimes decades, long waiting lists to get such simple things as cars or new appliances?
Or maybe year after year of failed crops?
The KGB arresting people for "crimes against the people" for not meeting Stalins impossible quotas?
Maybe the horrific and dismal state of housing in the USSR for any besides party apparatchiks?
Any industrial development was geared solely towards the military with few consumer goods ever available?
The emphasis on quantity over quality?
Dismal safety records? 100,000 deaths alone in building one of the canals.
What about the 25 million + people forcibly relocated from rural areas to the cities, which then caused russian agriculture to tank so badly that feeding the new urban population was next to impossible?

shall I continue?

You are correct. I waited for 7 years to get a phone line installed in our apartment.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Look at the Russian Empire circa 1917. Now look at the Soviet Union circa 1953.
Soviet Union 1953 > Russian Empire 1917
Sure, it wasn't Happyhappyfunland, but it was enough to take the Soviet Union from a backwards shithole to a superpower in just under 40 years. His policies worked. That said, I don't agree with them.

How can you call Stalin successful when his country was lagging behind the West? How is that successful? The US was doing all that the Soviet were and more. And this is all while the Soviets are yakking on about how much better their system was than the corrupt capitalism of the West.

If you SAY that you've got the best system in the world, while clearly not having it, you've failed.

The Soviet Union (and Russia previously) was lagging behind to begin with, the margin of difference was much less in 1953 than it was in 1917.

I wouldn't say MUCH less. Just less. Consumer good and agriculture was just pathetic, and even with those sectors doing close to nothing, they couldn't match the West for heavy industry and military.

[Dyakovo]

How can you call Stalin successful when his country was lagging behind the West? How is that successful? The US was doing all that the Soviet were and more. And this is all while the Soviets are yakking on about how much better their system was than the corrupt capitalism of the West.

If you SAY that you've got the best system in the world, while clearly not having it, you've failed.

The Soviet Union (and Russia previously) was lagging behind to begin with, the margin of difference was much less in 1953 than it was in 1917.

I wouldn't say MUCH less. Just less. Consumer good and agriculture was just pathetic, and even with those sectors doing close to nothing, they couldn't match the West for heavy industry and military.

I suggest you do some research then if you honestly don't believe the difference was in '53 than in '17.

[Dyakovo]

Russia before Stalin was a backwards agricultural nation with almost no modern industry, by the end of his rule it was a super-power.

Explain to me how his policies did not work..

oh, where to begin.........

How about the millions of his own people he killed in order to enforce these policies?
Or the food lines which stretched literally for blocks to buy examples of meat (when meat was even available) and vegetables which anywhere in the US, Canada or Western Europe would have been in the dumpster?
Perhaps the years, sometimes decades, long waiting lists to get such simple things as cars or new appliances?
Or maybe year after year of failed crops?
The KGB arresting people for "crimes against the people" for not meeting Stalins impossible quotas?
Maybe the horrific and dismal state of housing in the USSR for any besides party apparatchiks?
Any industrial development was geared solely towards the military with few consumer goods ever available?
The emphasis on quantity over quality?
Dismal safety records? 100,000 deaths alone in building one of the canals.
What about the 25 million + people forcibly relocated from rural areas to the cities, which then caused russian agriculture to tank so badly that feeding the new urban population was next to impossible?

shall I continue?

You are correct. I waited for 7 years to get a phone line installed in our apartment.

I highly doubt you were alive in the Stalin era, which makes this claim meaningless.

[Shawnaland]

Can't see enough of the second word to be able to figure out what it is, but the first one "Победа" is victory...
Maybe someone who is actually fluent in Russian will come along and be more of a help...

"Будет" is what it looks like. Which is where I got my "going" from.

"Будет" is what it is. Which means "will be". Victory will be.... ours?

[Ferrous Oxide]

I suggest you do some research then if you honestly don't believe the difference was in '53 than in '17.

It's very easy to proclaim something a success when you start with nothing. That's doesn't mean that the Soviet Union measured up to the West.

"Hey look! Arabia went from emptying sand out of their underpants in the desert to actually having a state! Saudi Arabia is the greatest country EVAR!"

[Dyakovo]

I suggest you do some research then if you honestly don't believe the difference was in '53 than in '17.

It's very easy to proclaim something a success when you start with nothing. That's doesn't mean that the Soviet Union measured up to the West.

"Hey look! Arabia went from emptying sand out of their underpants in the desert to actually having a state! Saudi Arabia is the greatest country EVAR!"

Okay, when did any of us say that the Soviet Union was the greatest country ever?

We said Stalin took the country from having essentially no industry to be a superpower in under 30 years. I would definitely call that a success.

[Dyakovo]

Can't see enough of the second word to be able to figure out what it is, but the first one "Победа" is victory...
Maybe someone who is actually fluent in Russian will come along and be more of a help...

"Будет" is what it looks like. Which is where I got my "going" from.

"Будет" is what it is. Which means "will be". Victory will be.... ours?

Probably, that certainly sounds reasonable...

So, good chance that the poster says this:
Победа будет нашей
yes?

[Ferrous Oxide]

I suggest you do some research then if you honestly don't believe the difference was in '53 than in '17.

It's very easy to proclaim something a success when you start with nothing. That's doesn't mean that the Soviet Union measured up to the West.

"Hey look! Arabia went from emptying sand out of their underpants in the desert to actually having a state! Saudi Arabia is the greatest country EVAR!"

Okay, when did any of us say that the Soviet Union was the greatest country ever?

We said Stalin took the country from having essentially no industry to be a superpower in under 30 years. I would definitely call that a success.

Yes, he gave them heavy industry and military. AT THE HUGE EXPENSE OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER GOODS. Military strength and heavy industry are just two measures of success.

[Dyakovo]

Okay, when did any of us say that the Soviet Union was the greatest country ever?

We said Stalin took the country from having essentially no industry to be a superpower in under 30 years. I would definitely call that a success.

Yes, he gave them heavy industry and military. AT THE HUGE EXPENSE OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER GOODS. Military strength and heavy industry are just two measures of success.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Okay, when did any of us say that the Soviet Union was the greatest country ever?

We said Stalin took the country from having essentially no industry to be a superpower in under 30 years. I would definitely call that a success.

Yes, he gave them heavy industry and military. AT THE HUGE EXPENSE OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER GOODS. Military strength and heavy industry are just two measures of success.

My point is, they may have improved upon the Russian Empire, but they did it in a profoundly stupid way. If they were capitalist, they could have been far better off.

[Shawnaland]

If you SAY that you've got the best system in the world, while clearly not having it, you've failed.

The Soviet Union (and Russia previously) was lagging behind to begin with, the margin of difference was much less in 1953 than it was in 1917.[/quote]

I wouldn't say MUCH less. Just less. Consumer good and agriculture was just pathetic, and even with those sectors doing close to nothing, they couldn't match the West for heavy industry and military.[/quote]

I would no say less at all. Obviously Russia was not an economic powerhouse under the Tsars, but compared much more favorably to the west than the Soviet Union ever did.

[Shawnaland]

Probably, that certainly sounds reasonable...

So, good chance that the poster says this:
Победа будет нашей
yes?

Yes, could be.

[Dyakovo]

If you SAY that you've got the best system in the world, while clearly not having it, you've failed.

The Soviet Union (and Russia previously) was lagging behind to begin with, the margin of difference was much less in 1953 than it was in 1917.

I wouldn't say MUCH less. Just less. Consumer good and agriculture was just pathetic, and even with those sectors doing close to nothing, they couldn't match the West for heavy industry and military.[/quote]

I would no say less at all. Obviously Russia was not an economic powerhouse under the Tsars, but compared much more favorably to the west than the Soviet Union ever did.[/quote]
I don't think any of us has stated that they were an economic powerhouse...

The main goal of Stalin's 5 year plans was to make the Soviet Union an industrial powerhouse, something which he succeeded at.

Could it have been done better? Yes, most certainly.
Was there huge problems with his methods? Again, yes.