Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 17th, 2012, 03:35 PM   #191

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,792

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashiusx View Post
There is always a breaking point of what people can in taken. The aristocracy were basically bullies exploiting the masses for their indulgence and their hedonism. It was the Elites themselves who sow the seeds for that cultural insecurity by exalting themselves so above the rest.
Still, the killing of people in the name of hate, is not proper. There are ways to change and introduce progress as had been done by other European nations like England and Netherlands, in contrast to the way France and Russia did it.
dagul is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 17th, 2012, 03:53 PM   #192

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,792

Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm View Post
There are some points i agree with and some i disagree with here.
It is important to note that unlike the revolution in France and in Russia, the one started by Cromwell, was more like the parliament against the king, the members of the parliament were gentry, not very wealthy nobles, but upper class nevertheless, while in France we see a popular unrest and obvious hate against the aristocracy, and against the king.

You see before the idea of nationhood, the monarch was the state/country, he was the personification of it. It is interesting to note the accounts surrounding the execution of Charles I, from what i have read about it, i stayed with the impression that the common folks were surprised, something unexpected and extraordinary for them happened.

As for the colonies of the British empire, we must speak individually here, because with the ideas of nationalism many former colonies of UK started seeking independence and managed to earn it one way or another.
Besides that at some point in history United Kingdom was unable to sustain all its colonies.
About the cultural insecurity, i don't think that France just before the Revolution was in any way culturally insecure, if anything some years before the revolution France was actually culturally, and militarily powerful maybe even most powerful in Europe.
When I stated about cultural insecurity, I do not mean the standards of the French people as compared with other culture, and what I mean is the perception of the masses over the elite. It must be noted that such hate of the ordinary people against the French monarchs was a manifestation of the insecurity and envy. It means that they cannot find self fulfilment while they can see the existence of the elite, in contrast to the kind of pride that the British people had seen with their kind of monarchs. Such is a cultural thing.

On the former colonies of the British, it is only the U.S. that's able to militarily defeat their colonial masters and the rest of them needed WW2 to happen in order to gain their freedom the soonest. This matter is what separates the U.S. from the U.K. in terms of recognition of sovereignty of their respective colonies.

The Bolshevik Revolution was the creation of a state that merely replaced the former authoritarians with new authoritarians. Nothing was authentic in it except the players and the incoming new administrators of government. For sure there was some sort of the promise to the masses and augmented economic benefits, but nothing whatsoever changed when it comes to the fact that the people had no civil liberities. It was the same dictatorial regime.
dagul is offline  
Old October 17th, 2012, 04:01 PM   #193

Ashiusx's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New York City
Posts: 654
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Still, the killing of people in the name of hate, is not proper. There are ways to change and introduce progress as had been done by other European nations like England and Netherlands, in contrast to the way France and Russia did it.
You're right but history has shown man is an animal dictated by passion more than reason.
Ashiusx is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 06:02 AM   #194

Koba's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
Your entire post proves the flaw of your conclusion. At the risk of being redundant, communism (whether we are talking about the version of Marx or that of Stalin) ultimately failed because it took no account of human nature. Egalitarian ideals are fine as far as they go, but in the real world they can't drive an economic (or political) system. Since people were never rewarded for excellence under it, there was no incentive to said excellence. Communism produced millions of mediocrities which in turn produced a mediocre economic return.

Capitalism, otoh, willfully embraces human nature. For all its significant excesses, capitalism creates drive in people who want to better their lot that communism simply can't. At the risk of being cliche, greed is indeed good-provided there are enough safeguards in place to prevent/punish abuse.
Yeah, just look at what a total failure Communism was:

The adventure led from the illiteracy to literacy, from the NEP to socialism, from archaic agriculture to collective cultivation, from a rural society to a predominately urban community, from general ignorance of the machine to social mastery of modern technology.
Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union.


Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 212


The Soviets attained under Stalin's rule the first place in the world in regard to tractors, machines, and motor trucks; the second as to electric power. Russia, 20 years ago the least mechanized country, has become the foremost.... In the same decade between 1929 in 1939, in which the production of all other countries barely mounted, while even dropping in some, Soviet production was multiplied by 4. The national income mounted between 1913 in 1938 from 21 to 105 billion rubles. The income of the individual citizen was increased by 370% in the last eight years--with only irrelevant income taxes and reasonable social security contributions imposed upon them--while it dropped almost everywhere else in the world.


Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 129


When we consider Stalin's facts and figures, it becomes clear that we are witnessing the most concentrated economic advance ever recorded--greater even than those of the Industrial Revolution. Within 10 years a primarily feudal society had been changed into an industrialized one. And for the first time in history such an advance was due not to capitalism but to socialism.


Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 75
Koba is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:13 AM   #195
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 669

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koba View Post
Yeah, just look at what a total failure Communism was:

The adventure led from the illiteracy to literacy, from the NEP to socialism, from archaic agriculture to collective cultivation, from a rural society to a predominately urban community, from general ignorance of the machine to social mastery of modern technology.
Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union.


Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 212


The Soviets attained under Stalin's rule the first place in the world in regard to tractors, machines, and motor trucks; the second as to electric power. Russia, 20 years ago the least mechanized country, has become the foremost.... In the same decade between 1929 in 1939, in which the production of all other countries barely mounted, while even dropping in some, Soviet production was multiplied by 4. The national income mounted between 1913 in 1938 from 21 to 105 billion rubles. The income of the individual citizen was increased by 370% in the last eight years--with only irrelevant income taxes and reasonable social security contributions imposed upon them--while it dropped almost everywhere else in the world.


Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 129


When we consider Stalin's facts and figures, it becomes clear that we are witnessing the most concentrated economic advance ever recorded--greater even than those of the Industrial Revolution. Within 10 years a primarily feudal society had been changed into an industrialized one. And for the first time in history such an advance was due not to capitalism but to socialism.


Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 75
All at the cost of only a few million starved peasants!
MAlexMatt is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
communist, countries, failure


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epic Failure Isoroku295 War and Military History 71 July 9th, 2012 03:34 AM
Failure of the Diadochi okamido Ancient History 120 September 9th, 2011 07:25 AM
Was Prohibition in the US a failure? Mohammed the Persian American History 52 May 22nd, 2011 08:15 AM
Unusual, strange, funny facts, randoms about former european communist countries Perix European History 20 February 4th, 2011 07:04 AM
Failure of the League of Nations papersun History Help 18 November 27th, 2009 03:27 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.