Interesting and Humour - page 3494
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
But how did they manage to develop a nuclear reactor without Stalin?
No, my dear, they rose, primarily because they did not prohibit people to live the way they want to live and do business.
So go there, trade forex there. What's the problem? Or it is not allowed to trade forex there? Ah...
That's it, Dimitri, you are making an ugly conundrum, it is not interesting to talk, and it is not for you that I have answered about "restored Germany".
Are you suffering from dementia, Dimitri? You talk about how Stalin was able to raise the country from the ruins and reach the heights of technical development up to nuclear reactors, and you talk about a country that had no wars on its territory and which made money on wars, which was the first to test nuclear weapons, incidentally, again not on the territory of its own country. Why wouldn't they build a reactor if all the money from world wars flowed to the states? In that case, it would be strange if nobody but Stalin built the reactor.
So go there, trade forex there. What's the problem? Or it is not allowed to trade forex there? Ah...
That's it, Dimitri, you are making things worse, we are not interested in talking, and it is not for you that I have answered on "restored Germany".
Where it is not allowed to trade in the forex market? What kind of nonsense is that?
You think you are interesting? You overestimate yourself.
What does this have to do with the rebuilding of Germany? What is it about and what is it about?Would you increase it?
Would you increase it?
I think that's a hint...
I hope I am not provoking or offending you with my previous post and I quite understand what you are writing about, and the role of Stalin and the need for industrialisation, all this I am not disputing, but I want to say a bit different: were camps and stories with "enemies of the people" and all these steep measures and class purges really necessary at the edge of normal? (actually beyond normal) - and why in the end did it all gradually degenerate into the most banal nomenklatura trough for "cronies", and completely strange notions began to emerge, such as the concept of "I got it" because even money could not buy it? - Doesn't this indicate a fundamental contradiction in the structure of such a society? - and undoubtedly yes, the labour feat of the people and the industrial breakthrough and rockets are all super, but for some reason one does not want to live in that era and repeat that experiment... as for the war, it is an exogenous factor because there are 2 clear counter-examples: the surrendered Germany with enormous inflation, devastation, debt and concessions, now suddenly the 1st economy in Europe, and the surrendered Japan with minimal land and resources surviving nuclear explosions and now suddenly one of the leading innovative economies in Asia - does this not suggest that there was something wrong with the USSR initially? - How did the victorious country (USSR) end up as a resource colony?
I am impressed by your attempt to answer the question: why so?
There are a lot of people who try to answer this question. For the last 25 years, anti-Soviet Russophobia and subservience to the West have been the mainstream. And this adulation has made it impossible to think.
But there are other answers and there are other people who think about it and give answers.
Here is what I have proofread on the nodal points.
1. The Civil War. Was it avoidable? No. Let's clarify the start date of the civil war. Contrary to the commonly accepted date - 1918, we should consider as such the date in February 1917, when soldiers of the garrison joined the workers' demonstrations in St. Petersburg and began to round up officers and policemen. With impunity.
The cause of the civil war was not the intrigues of individual citizens or parties, but irreconcilable, deep splits in society. These rifts had been brewing for decades and they were all laid bare at once with the removal of the Tsar from the throne. In all countries of the world such rifts are resolved in the only way - by civil war.
2. Raskulakization. Could it have been done differently, humanly? By convincing people without alienating potential supporters in the middle classes? I don't know. It was necessary to free up labor resources for industrialization and to replace those who had left agriculture by increasing productivity. It was called 'collectivisation and industrialisation'.
Were the problems of preparation for war solved? Almost, the country was about two years behind in its preparations for war (military-industrial parity was not achieved until mid-1943).
3. 1937. A nodal year for understanding 1991. A massive attack by anti-Soviet and Russophobes, so that we never even try to sort it out, but only repent and drum our second-rateness into our heads.
Personally I support the view of those people who believe that 1937, with the very convenient word for distortion "repressions", was a continuation of the civil war. If one believes that, then the question automatically arises: who and with whom.
The answer.
There were three different points of view within the party
- world revolution
- Receiving benefits as victors in the revolution
- The construction of a just society, which must necessarily be defended in a war.
The war was fought with the weapons we had (denunciations, anonymous tips, special dispatches). But the people who took part in this war were those who came out of the civil war, and their formation was in the destruction of the enemy with a counter-saber-rattling - to pieces of meat.The latter point of view prevailed. The result was industrialization and victory in the war.
4. Death of Stalin. People who want to live well come to power - this is the second part of the party according to the 1937 classification. Both the top of the nomenklatura and the feted top of the intelligentsia lived well. And by 1985, all these people came to the conclusion that their children should have the right to inherit their parents' social status.
That was it. The fate of the country was sealed.
Yes, socialism in Russia is dead. But the history of socialism in Russia, is not a refutation of the very idea of a just society. A certain part of our society wants very much otherwise, they twist, fabricate documents, lie... But today there are more and more people who understand the history of the country as I have outlined it. These people are becoming bolder and bolder in the media.
We will return to the red idea in a new branch of history, because justice is in our genes. And man's destiny is NOT to "get/buy/feed it all and recycle it into shit".
One needs to understand one's history and draw conclusions and I hear them very often.
1. No splits in society, especially with the smell of civil war
2. The betrayal of the elites must be addressed.