On May 31, 4:46Â pm, Les Cargill
cfl.rr.com> wrote:>> On May 29, 8:37 pm, Les Cargill
cfl.rr.com> wrote:>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>>>> On May 29, 4:22 pm, Les Cargill
cfl.rr.com> wrote:>>>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>>>>>> On May 28, 2:03 am, Les Cargill
cfl.rr.com> wrote:>>>>>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>>>>>>> No. Fascism is simply governmental micromanagement of
>>>>>>> enterprise. At least Mussolini claimed Fascism to be
>>>>>>> dynamic, and there's some evidence that was the case.
>>>>>> By your definition, Sweden is a highly fascist state!
>>>>>> I think this might come as a surprise to the Swedes.
>>>>> It might indeed.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Les Cargill- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> You see Les, one of the reasons I'm obsessing on this Stalin thing a
>>>> bit -- it's not that I'm a Stalinist or a Communist, you know -- is
>>>> that there's so much utter nonsense spouted by people about Stalin.
>>>> Obviously, he didn't kill 60 million people like Solzhenitsyn says --
>>>> at least in the sense of "executing" 60 million people, or
>>>> deliberately killing 60 million people in concentration camps --
>>>> because his country's population would have gone down substantially,
>>> It's Russia. How could you tell? Various portions of
>>> the Russian Empire have been at war with each other since
>>> Ivan the Terrible. It's a *violent* place.
>
>> The losses were not necessarily due to internal fighting. During the
>> reign of Peter I Russia alledgedly lost something in the range of
>> 20-25%% of a population without parts of it 'fighting' each other. Big
>> part of the losses were due to the massive construction projects (St.
>> Petersburg was the biggest but not the only one) and wasteful way of
>> conducting the military operations. Stalin was operating along the
>> same lines so huge losses of population are to be expected.
>
> I can't particularly disagree there.
>
>> The main
>> difference was that Peter I was simply forcefully 'recruiting' his
>> workers as opposite to Stalin's GULAG system. Taking into an account
>> that in both cases the workers were not free to leave and that
>> administration had a power of life and death over the workers, the
>> differences were not that great.
>
> I'm not sure what economic analysis of Peter the Great's reign
> would show, but Stalin created economic inefficiencies that
> killed lots of people - in a way that Hayek would describe.
AFAIK, quite a few modern (within last century) historians agreed that
Peter failed in his reforms of economy and what you wrote above can be
applied to Peter word by word.
Well before Stalin he was trying to create a serf-based industry. The
main difference was that under Stalin the state was serf-owner while
under Peter serf-ownership was restricted to a nobility, thus blocking
potential 'real' capitalists from recruiting labor force. Of course,
most of the noble 'enterpreneurs' did not have enough skills,
interest, abilities, etc. to maintain their manufactures. Demidovs
(who had been ennobled by Peter) were one of the exceptions but by the
mid-XIX technological developments made their serf-based enterprises
inadequate.
>
>> Then, any reference to the Soviet time census are a little bit naive:
>> all published data on practically any subject had been censored and
>> edited to reflect 'desired reality'. S's data are result of his
>> 'ballpark estimates' and, AFAIK, he idd not pretend (at least in
>> 'Archipelago') to provide precise numbers.
>
> No. And it's clearly a polemic. But that was quite useful, and
> as a polemic, it's very damning of the Soviet system. The rage
> in it is a cold rage.
>
Indeed.
>
>> []
>
>>> I mean, he died *of his own reputation*. After the Doctors' Plot,
>>> doctors were... afraid to be around him.
>
>> The Doctor's Plot was, AFAIK, a strictly anti-semitic affair with
>> practically no impact on the non-Jewish doctors so why would _they_
>> fear (except for fearing in general)? Not to mention that their fear
>> would not prevent them from attending him if ordered.
>
> I'd question the "strictly anti-Semitic" thing. The term is
> "cosmopolitan", really
> - any intellectual who was not of the
> Soviet core was eligible to be persecuted.
Yes, but this term was predominantly used against the Jews. Initially,
in medicine and then in other areas.
>I would also
> not be surprised to find factionalism at work in there,
> the sort going back to Ivan and the Boyars.
I'm not sure that I got it. Most of the 'argument' between Ivan and
the boyars was about the issue of what EXACTLT Tzar is entitled to do
with his high-placed subjects. Both sides did not have a visible
problem with a notion that Tzar is entitled to execute them more or
less at his whim but it was assumed that there should be SOME reason.
Another point of contention was placement within state's hierarchy (on
this issue Ivan lost miserably). The principle "Tzar can't award
person with an ancestry" won and kep winning (with the disastrous
results) until the reign of Fedor Alexeevich. One of the reasons for
creating Oprichnina was an attempt to have a complete power at least
in this 'sub-state'.
I'm not sure that anything of the kind was relevant by early 1950's.
>
>>> He took days to die, on the
>>> floor. Beria checked on him periodically, exhorting him to die. You
>>> can't make stuff like that up.
>
>> Actually, you can quite easily: with nothing being known for sure,
>> numerous exotic legends came to existence. For example, how do you
>> know that what you described was what really happened? Almost by
>> definition, there were no witnesses present and, to the best of my
>> knowledge, Beria did not have a quiet retirement time to write his
>> memories. :-)
Ah, Radzinski and his theories.... :-)
[and, as far as Nikita is concerned, I would not rely on his
'memories' as on unquestionable source of truth]
[]
>>> But ultimately, Stalin
>>> was a Tsar, and Tsars were either cruel or they were eaten
>>> alive.
>
>> Not necessarily (AFAIK, Elizabeth I, Catherine II, Alexander I, or
>> Alexander III were not consumed alive or otehrwise, while not
>> displaying any extraordinary cruelty).
>
> That's true. I'm a little unfamiliar with them, unfortunately.
> They appear to have ruled during less turbulent times, between
> "wars".
>
Well, not necessarily. Elizabeth I got Russia into the 7YW, Catherine
II was one of the most successfully-aggressive Russian rulers (wars
against the Ottomans, Partitions of Poland, etc.). Alexander I was
Napoleon's contemporary and personally participated in numerous
campaigns, starting from Austerlitz.
Alexander III, indeed, got nickname 'Peacemaker': time of his reign
was very turbulent thanks to the raise of the revolutionary activities
but he managed to die from the natural causes.
>>> And finally, you say that - but Stalin ultimately created a bubble,
>>> such as it was, in the Soviet system that contributed mightily
>>> to bringing it down. Mindless statistical "glorious Soviet
>>> production of tractors up 40%%" producto-prop belied the deep, deep
>>> problems brought about by the sheer scale of Stalin's ambition.
>
>>> But, like Peter the Great, he did advance them materially. Just at
>>> great ultimate cost.
>
>> Peter I did not 'advance materially' anybody besides a narrow circle
>> of his cronies.
>
> Well, he made Russia a global power.
Sorry for more of a nitpicking but he actually did not. By the end of
his reign Russia became a regional power with no position or true
recognition in the broader European politics. Situation changed during
the reign of Elizabeth I when Russia entered the 7YW and, to
everybody's surprise, managed to became one of the decisive 'military
factors' (at least after Kunersdorf). It can be argued that Russia
became REAL Great Power only during the reign of Catherine II with the
victories over the Ottomans, Russian fleet successfully operating in
Mediterranian, and, perhaps more important, Catherine 'thinking
globally'.
>I've no real data on the effect
> on rank and file of his policies, other than the forced labor stuff.
Well, you can count introduction of the Dutch dress style (almost
immediately after his death it was replaced by the French style, which
he hated), extensive usage of the foreign words (again, Peter used a
lot of Dutch but soon after his death French became prevalent). He
introduced 'western' military uniform which was absolutely unsuitable
for the Russian climate and which later Potemkin was referencing as
'nonsense'. He did left 'westernized' army but western-style troops
had been created before his reign (and mostly fell apart during the
regency of his mother). When Peter III abolished one of Peter's main
establishments (mandatory life-long military service for all male
nobles), representatives of the Russian nobility expressed a wish to
erect him a golden statue as a token of their gratitude. His
administrative mechanisms had been reformed numerous times after his
death due to their impracticality.
One of the lasting things was establishment of the Synod: Russian
Church was placed under control of the state-appointed secular
official. Another was foundation of St-Petersburg. However, most of
the cargo (at least until late XIX) had been carried by the foreign
ships. Russian Navy was not (except for galleys used during the Great
Northern War) a serious military factor until the reign of Catherine
II. Almost forgot, he established the Guards who successfully
influenced succession of the Russian throne until early XIX (Catherine
I, Elizabeth I, Catherine II, Alexander I came to poer thanks to the
military coups).
Uquestionably positive thing: he founded Peterhoff (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhof).
:-)
>
>> His economic 'reforms' failed in short-term and proved
>> to be a total disaster for Russia in long-term, which makes him quite
>> similar to Stalin. 'Trademarks' in both cases included (list is far
>> from being complete): attempts to create a serf-based industry,
>> 'organization' of economy based on the 'ideas from the top', huge
>> construction projects (often useless) implemented by a forced labor
>> with a disregard to the human losses, etc.
>
> I'd agree - they compare well. Both were interested in expanding
> Russia's international power.
In this area Stalin was noticeably more successful: power of Peter's
Russia did not extend too far beyond its borders.
> Both expanded transport capacity ,
Errrrrrrrrr...... I'm not sure that Peter had too many reasons for
boasting about THIS. :-)
> a very key resource in a place that spans eight time zones.
>
> It's obviously a complex subject.
Indeed.
