The Russia question!

[F1fan]

Yes, but I was referring to all Russians living in Ukraine, killed by the Ukrainian government, including those in the uprising!

Which government? Zelenskyy was elected a few years ago on a reform ballot. The previous governments were pro-Russian and highly corrupt. Are you referring to these later governments?

 

[Spiderman]

Which government? Zelenskyy was elected a few years ago on a reform ballot. The previous governments were pro-Russian and highly corrupt. Are you referring to these later governments?

I'm referring to all Russians killed by Ukrainian Government since the fall of the Soviet Union actually!

 

[Spiderman]

GovernmentS

 

[F1fan]

I'm referring to all Russians killed by Ukrainian Government since the fall of the Soviet Union actually!

Well then why would Putin use what pro-Russian governments did against a new and independent government? How can what Russia has done to Ukraine compare to what is claimed to be some 2000 killed Russians over three decades?

I'm not ware of the Russian deaths you're referring to, BTW.

 

[Stevicus]

"Also known as “Smash Sparrow”, this campaign launched in the year 1958 by Mao Zedong is the worst ecological disaster known to mankind. Mao felt that sparrows ate too much grain and China could do without such pests. Thus, he decreed that all sparrows be killed. "
The real reason why China started consuming every other wild animal. It has something to do with sparrows and Mao.

It's one thing for humane societies to comfortably euthanize stray pets that don't have homes and are suffering in a pound. It's something else to order the killing of every harmless sparrow enjoying life in the wild, and the consequences of that! I also saw some of the way they followed his orders to kill sparrows, was to keep the sparrow flying around scared until it dies, from exhaustion or cannot fly anymore, and can be killed, because it is too exhausted and frightened to escape. I saw the instructions people were given for their massive sparrow exterminations.

That is nothing like what is done at humane societies.

But okay, if genocide against what he thought was a pest, was his worst crime, I wouldn't have much to complain about. What about him speaking positively about half the Chinese population dying of starvation, or at least half the population dying, after a comment about starvation,

or all political power coming from the barrel of a gun:
View attachment 62478 View attachment 62479

To be continued....see next post.....

I can't respond to every incident of atrocities that you're citing here. I'm not necessarily denying or doubting they occurred, but I also can't deny that history is filled with countless stories of man's inhumanity to man (and woman). You can look at the history of any country and find examples of gross injustice or severe atrocity - murder, torture, rape, crimes against children, etc. I'm not saying that it makes it okay; it's never okay.

However, I think one should also look at the larger picture if one is attempting to argue that one philosophy is better or has a lower kill count than another, if that's the basis of your evaluation of which philosophy is "good" or "evil."

I should say that all my life, I've been hearing about how bad and evil the communists are, so if it's not already obvious, I've had this argument before.

Ironically, my initial attention and interest to this general topic actually began when I started becoming more aware of US politics and how so much of our public policy has been shifted and influenced by the existence of communism and the Soviet Union.

Our foreign policy and our global militarism and interventionism was the most obvious and glaring example. But in the process of supposedly "fighting communism," our government engaged in activities which many reasonable people of good conscience would consider immoral and dishonorable, and which damaged the long-term reputation of America. But it was justified in the eyes of many, precisely because of all these horror stories we were getting fed by the mainstream media about what was going on in the Soviet Union and thinking that it would spread all over the world.

The problem was both one of logic and morals. Even if Stalin killed so many millions of people in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, that doesn't justify the US bombing innocent women and children in Vietnam in the 1960s. One doesn't really have anything to do with the other, yet anti-communists always try to make it seem that way. Or even going after Arbenz in Guatemala or Allende in Chile - and they weren't even communists. All they wanted was a better life for their people free of US hegemony and capitalist exploitation. Then there was Mosaddegh in Iran, who was overthrown and replaced with the Shah.

It also comes up in discussions of domestic policies, too. I've heard that we can't have nationalized healthcare in the United States because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag. We can't have price controls or rent controls because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag. We can't find homes for homeless people because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag. Oliver Twist can't have more gruel because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag.

When you hear this kind of thing over and over and over again, over the course of more than a half century, you begin to notice a familiar pattern. It was never really about what the Soviet government did, but it was more about controlling and directing policy here at home.

Mind you, I have no illusions about what the communists were. I'm much more familiar with Russian history than with Chinese history, although there's some overlap between the two. Both Russia and China have something in common in that they have long-term historical experience of living under Mongol rule. Now, if you want to talk about horrific atrocities, the Mongols are definitely up there on the list. In my studies of Russian history, I get a strong sense that the Russians were quite resentful of living under the Mongol Yoke, but it's a part of their history. Moscow became powerful as the Muscovite nobles became the Mongols' tax collectors in that region of the empire. When the Mongol Empire splintered and collapsed, Muscovy was firmly established as a major center in Russia, which itself was still splintered and divided among several principalities, but they expanded and slowly established themselves into forming the foundation of the modern Russian state.

I only mention this just to point out that the people living in these regions of the world are no strangers to war, atrocity, murder, torture, rape, and any number of other examples of humanity's inhumanity. It doesn't justify any of it, but it seems to be something that they're used to.

The Tsarist government was quite brutal, and no doubt there was a great deal of hatred between the rival political factions at the time of the Russian Revolution and Civil War - and in the years that followed. As I said, one doesn't justify the other, but at least on a certain detached, objective level, I can understand that much of what happened in the aftermath seems attributable to the settling of old scores, revenge, not to mention the trauma of going through world war, then revolution, civil war - and all the devastation and death it all wrought.

In other words, whatever happened is likely more attributable to what they had gone through and the post-revolutionary anger and hatred which, however tragic and unfortunate it may be, is the result of centuries of oppression and injustice faced by whole populations.

It wasn't because of an economic philosophy.

 

[Spiderman]

I can't respond to every incident of atrocities that you're citing here. I'm not necessarily denying or doubting they occurred, but I also can't deny that history is filled with countless stories of man's inhumanity to man (and woman). You can look at the history of any country and find examples of gross injustice or severe atrocity - murder, torture, rape, crimes against children, etc. I'm not saying that it makes it okay; it's never okay.

However, I think one should also look at the larger picture if one is attempting to argue that one philosophy is better or has a lower kill count than another, if that's the basis of your evaluation of which philosophy is "good" or "evil."

I should say that all my life, I've been hearing about how bad and evil the communists are, so if it's not already obvious, I've had this argument before.

Ironically, my initial attention and interest to this general topic actually began when I started becoming more aware of US politics and how so much of our public policy has been shifted and influenced by the existence of communism and the Soviet Union.

Our foreign policy and our global militarism and interventionism was the most obvious and glaring example. But in the process of supposedly "fighting communism," our government engaged in activities which many reasonable people of good conscience would consider immoral and dishonorable, and which damaged the long-term reputation of America. But it was justified in the eyes of many, precisely because of all these horror stories we were getting fed by the mainstream media about what was going on in the Soviet Union and thinking that it would spread all over the world.

The problem was both one of logic and morals. Even if Stalin killed so many millions of people in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, that doesn't justify the US bombing innocent women and children in Vietnam in the 1960s. One doesn't really have anything to do with the other, yet anti-communists always try to make it seem that way. Or even going after Arbenz in Guatemala or Allende in Chile - and they weren't even communists. All they wanted was a better life for their people free of US hegemony and capitalist exploitation. Then there was Mosaddegh in Iran, who was overthrown and replaced with the Shah.

It also comes up in discussions of domestic policies, too. I've heard that we can't have nationalized healthcare in the United States because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag. We can't have price controls or rent controls because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag. We can't find homes for homeless people because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag. Oliver Twist can't have more gruel because the Soviets killed millions of people in the gulag.

When you hear this kind of thing over and over and over again, over the course of more than a half century, you begin to notice a familiar pattern. It was never really about what the Soviet government did, but it was more about controlling and directing policy here at home.

Mind you, I have no illusions about what the communists were. I'm much more familiar with Russian history than with Chinese history, although there's some overlap between the two. Both Russia and China have something in common in that they have long-term historical experience of living under Mongol rule. Now, if you want to talk about horrific atrocities, the Mongols are definitely up there on the list. In my studies of Russian history, I get a strong sense that the Russians were quite resentful of living under the Mongol Yoke, but it's a part of their history. Moscow became powerful as the Muscovite nobles became the Mongols' tax collectors in that region of the empire. When the Mongol Empire splintered and collapsed, Muscovy was firmly established as a major center in Russia, which itself was still splintered and divided among several principalities, but they expanded and slowly established themselves into forming the foundation of the modern Russian state.

I only mention this just to point out that the people living in these regions of the world are no strangers to war, atrocity, murder, torture, rape, and any number of other examples of humanity's inhumanity. It doesn't justify any of it, but it seems to be something that they're used to.

The Tsarist government was quite brutal, and no doubt there was a great deal of hatred between the rival political factions at the time of the Russian Revolution and Civil War - and in the years that followed. As I said, one doesn't justify the other, but at least on a certain detached, objective level, I can understand that much of what happened in the aftermath seems attributable to the settling of old scores, revenge, not to mention the trauma of going through world war, then revolution, civil war - and all the devastation and death it all wrought.

In other words, whatever happened is likely more attributable to what they had gone through and the post-revolutionary anger and hatred which, however tragic and unfortunate it may be, is the result of centuries of oppression and injustice faced by whole populations.

It wasn't because of an economic philosophy.

I rated your post winner, even though I despise communism. Did you read my long post , citing Wikipedia, about Communism , not the one you just quoted, but the one after it?

If nothing else, it is why I despise communism above any form of government.

But I rated your post winner, because I believe you truly have studied Russian history and some of Chinese and vietnamese, and other history, and I do admire that quality.

You also speak of the damage America has done, that I consider sad, evil, morally wrong, all done in the name of fighting the spread of communism!

Although red revolutions, and the spread of Communist errors, has manifested itself in some of the most barbaric manners, with some of the worse mass killings, concentration camps, killing fields, and tortures I ever heard of, is it really okay to respond by dropping bombs on civilians, committing atrocious, and fighting evil with evil?

I don't know what the answer is, but I truly am disgusted with communism enough, that I think Francisco Franco in Spain, was a lesser evil than the monsters he was up against, backed by the Soviet union, in the Spanish Civil war.

But what his regime did to defeat communism in Spain was so brutal, can I dare justify it as a necessary evil?
. After the Spanish Civil war Franco put a sword on the altar of a Church, and said he would not shed blood again, unless Spain was invaded.

He refused to join axis powers during world war 2, reigned until 1975, and did accomplish some good things for his country. Muslims that fought with him said that it seemed like Allah was on his side.

Some of the Catholic faith and morality he promoted in his country and education system, does strike me as noble, virtuous, Spiritual, and he didn't allow immorality, or sexually impure entertainment in the industry to pollute minds and destroy innocence.

He was faithful to his wife, when a Dictator , victorious military strategist with Dictatorial powers over everyone in the government, can sleep with all kinds of pretty women. He chose fidelity to his wife.

He banned what I see as immoral from being in the media and entertainment industry, to not stir people up with lust, impure passions to commit crimes, or cheat on spouse, or anything that might break up the family.

He encouraged prayer, spirituality, self discipline, and sexual purity, all qualities I think make a more mature, healthy society, compared to what the media and entertainment industry in a liberal nation pollutes minds with.

But his methods for achieving this go totally against my conscience.

But how he defeated Communism was simply brutal violence, oppression that is an ugly thing for humans to do to each other.

You mentioned Chile! My understanding is Augusto Pinochet hated Marxism, and his choice of words regarding Marxists, left me the impression he was trying to purge his nation of Marxism, and that is why America supported him.

You seem to think he was oppressing something other than Marxism or Communism? Can you explain more?

If you have sympathies for Communism, I get the hunch that your heart is in the right place, from what I read.

I agree that I have actually lived in communist communities, and it was like utopia, just they were monasteries, not atheist, everyone worked, they sold and produced items, and all money and property belonged to the community, not the individuals. The sick were taken care for by the community. A type of Communism.

I'm all for social justice, and people not being filthy rich as others work themselves to death, barely able to make ends meet, or starve.

If the government is benevolent and distributes the money wisely , with virtue, and with charity, I am not opposed to taking more from the filthy rich, and giving to the poor and needy.

But communism is not just about that , if you look at history. It has been extremely militant, brutal, and repeatedly has condemned, persecuted, and banned Religion, tortured and put Religious people through hell, trying to destroy people's faith!

But , as you mentioned, that behavior is not limited to communism.

The human race, 90% of us have a hunger and yearning for God, or belief in the supernatural. By oppression of Religion, Communists are notorious for attacking what most people cherish and yearn for more than anything: faith, morality, God, and hope in the afterlife!

I find a society that oppresses such a yearning of the average human heart, to be a wicked society and Government without hope.

But there are virtues of communism I resonate with and sympathize with. Some of it sounds very good and noble in theory , just not in practice historically.

Thank you for sharing with me what you did, and the West has done a lot of evil with the excuse that we are fighting the spread of communism. Always good and fair to consider that.

 

[Spiderman]

Well then why would Putin use what pro-Russian governments did against a new and independent government? How can what Russia has done to Ukraine compare to what is claimed to be some 2000 killed Russians over three decades?

I'm not ware of the Russian deaths you're referring to, BTW.

The current Ukrainian government is corrupt and created through criminal violent means:
Revolution of Dignity - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

View attachment 62454

Now do how many people have been saved by medicines, vaccines and technologies developed by capitalists...

Then balance with medicines, vaccines and technologies developed by communists...

It wasn't because of an economic philosophy.

Correct. It was because of the political and moral philosophy that accompanied the economic philosophy.


Leninism posited a belief in humankind’s effective perfectibility through development of a new type of person, capable of living under communism. Belief in the attainability of an aesthetically pure, harmonious, and unitary future society required the removal of imperfections and the active sculpting of society by the state... [thus it required] “a radically new type of violence, truly decisive and self-contained, a form of violence that will put an end once and for all to violence itself.”93 This dialectical notion of violence to end violence is of cardinal importance for understanding how violence in the service of the revolution was not simply justified but sacralized in Bolshevik thought...the Soviet concept of “active humanism”—the necessity of taking (violent) action to eradicate the sources of human suffering—was quite central to the representation of violence as morally good...

The Sacralization of Violence: Bolshevik Justifications for Violence and Terror during the Civil War - James Ryan

 

[Stevicus]

I rated your post winner, even though I despise communism. Did you read my long post , citing Wikipedia, about Communism , not the one you just quoted, but the one after it?

If nothing else, it is why I despise communism above any form of government.

But I rated your post winner, because I believe you truly have studied Russian history and some of Chinese and vietnamese, and other history, and I do admire that quality.

You also speak of the damage America has done, that I consider sad, evil, morally wrong, all done in the name of fighting the spread of communism!

Although red revolutions, and the spread of Communist errors, has manifested itself in some of the most barbaric manners, with some of the worse mass killings, concentration camps, killing fields, and tortures I ever heard of, is it really okay to respond by dropping bombs on civilians, committing atrocious, and fighting evil with evil?

I don't know what the answer is, but I truly am disgusted with communism enough, that I think Francisco Franco in Spain, was a lesser evil than the monsters he was up against, backed by the Soviet union, in the Spanish Civil war.

But what his regime did to defeat communism in Spain was so brutal, can I dare justify it as a necessary evil?
. After the Spanish Civil war Franco put a sword on the altar of a Church, and said he would not shed blood again, unless Spain was invaded.

He refused to join axis powers during world war 2, reigned until 1975, and did accomplish some good things for his country. Muslims that fought with him said that it seemed like Allah was on his side.

Some of the Catholic faith and morality he promoted in his country and education system, does strike me as noble, virtuous, Spiritual, and he didn't allow immorality, or sexually impure entertainment in the industry to pollute minds and destroy innocence.

He was faithful to his wife, when a Dictator , victorious military strategist with Dictatorial powers over everyone in the government, can sleep with all kinds of pretty women. He chose fidelity to his wife.

He banned what I see as immoral from being in the media and entertainment industry, to not stir people up with lust, impure passions to commit crimes, or cheat on spouse, or anything that might break up the family.

He encouraged prayer, spirituality, self discipline, and sexual purity, all qualities I think make a more mature, healthy society, compared to what the media and entertainment industry in a liberal nation pollutes minds with.

But his methods for achieving this go totally against my conscience.

But how he defeated Communism was simply brutal violence, oppression that is an ugly thing for humans to do to each other.

You mentioned Chile! My understanding is Augusto Pinochet hated Marxism, and his choice of words regarding Marxists, left me the impression he was trying to purge his nation of Marxism, and that is why America supported him.

You seem to think he was oppressing something other than Marxism or Communism? Can you explain more?

If you have sympathies for Communism, I get the hunch that your heart is in the right place, from what I read.

I agree that I have actually lived in communist communities, and it was like utopia, just they were monasteries, not atheist, everyone worked, they sold and produced items, and all money and property belonged to the community, not the individuals. The sick were taken care for by the community. A type of Communism.

I'm all for social justice, and people not being filthy rich as others work themselves to death, barely able to make ends meet, or starve.

If the government is benevolent and distributes the money wisely , with virtue, and with charity, I am not opposed to taking more from the filthy rich, and giving to the poor and needy.

But communism is not just about that , if you look at history. It has been extremely militant, brutal, and repeatedly has condemned, persecuted, and banned Religion, tortured and put Religious people through hell, trying to destroy people's faith!

But , as you mentioned, that behavior is not limited to communism.

The human race, 90% of us have a hunger and yearning for God, or belief in the supernatural. By oppression of Religion, Communists are notorious for attacking what most people cherish and yearn for more than anything: faith, morality, God, and hope in the afterlife!

I find a society that oppresses such a yearning of the average human heart, to be a wicked society and Government without hope.

But there are virtues of communism I resonate with and sympathize with. Some of it sounds very good and noble in theory , just not in practice historically.

Thank you for sharing with me what you did, and the West has done a lot of evil with the excuse that we are fighting the spread of communism. Always good and fair to consider that.

Yes, I did read both of your posts, as well as this one, and again, I'm not denying or doubting the atrocities of communism or anything that you've posted about it. Many of the things you've posted, I'm well aware of.

It's not that I necessarily have sympathies for communism, but I don't really fear it as much as some people do. While I'm aware of the atrocities associated with communism, I attribute them more to individual, unique, but extremely harsh circumstances already faced by the countries where communism came to power.

Another thing I try to keep in mind is that communist revolutions happened because of the failures of the government which preceded them. In a way, the revolution and rise of communism in Russia might have been a wake-up call to the West, which started to favor more liberal policies and more sympathy for the labor movement and working classes. As long as the workers are treated with an adequate level of fairness and decency, they're not likely to support any revolutionary activity. It's only when things get so bad and so far beyond reasonable that revolution is more palatable to more people.

That's really the dirty little secret if any country seeks to avoid revolution, communism, or some other upheaval or extremist ideology. The Western capitalist governments which started to become more liberalized in terms of democratization, civil rights, support of labor unions, and similar measures had the effect of reducing revolutionary idealism in the Western liberal democracies. That's one of the main reasons many people considered our leaders' anti-communist posturing was going way too far, as it just seemed incredibly unrealistic to think that the communists could seriously take over America.

At this point, communism, as it was practiced under Stalin or Mao, is a dead duck. It's not coming back. I think what we're dealing with now, with both Russia and China, is nationalism.

For the U.S., I would still favor a somewhat mixed economy. Capitalism can possibly work as long as it's kept under some measure of positive control. Socialism doesn't have to mean taking control over everything. Some things can still be kept in the private sector, and there can still be freedom and democracy.

But a lot of it depends on capitalists and how willing they are to cooperate with progressive ideals which will improve the standard of living and the lives of working and poor people. If they refuse to do the right thing and stubbornly entrench themselves like the Romanovs at Tsarskoe Celo, well then, what will be will be.

 

[Stevicus]

Now do how many people have been saved by medicines, vaccines and technologies developed by capitalists...

Then balance with medicines, vaccines and technologies developed by communists...

I actually believe that scientists, engineers, doctors, and other talented individuals invented and developed these medicines, vaccines, and technologies. Not necessarily "capitalists" or "communists."

This is kind of a poor argument to make.

Correct. It was because of the political and moral philosophy that accompanied the economic philosophy.


Leninism posited a belief in humankind’s effective perfectibility through development of a new type of person, capable of living under communism. Belief in the attainability of an aesthetically pure, harmonious, and unitary future society required the removal of imperfections and the active sculpting of society by the state... [thus it required] “a radically new type of violence, truly decisive and self-contained, a form of violence that will put an end once and for all to violence itself.”93 This dialectical notion of violence to end violence is of cardinal importance for understanding how violence in the service of the revolution was not simply justified but sacralized in Bolshevik thought...the Soviet concept of “active humanism”—the necessity of taking (violent) action to eradicate the sources of human suffering—was quite central to the representation of violence as morally good...

The Sacralization of Violence: Bolshevik Justifications for Violence and Terror during the Civil War - James Ryan

This doesn't really address the point I was making.

 

[Augustus]

I actually believe that scientists, engineers, doctors, and other talented individuals invented and developed these medicines, vaccines, and technologies. Not necessarily "capitalists" or "communists."

This is kind of a poor argument to make.

I agree it's facile, but it was in the equally facile context of the "20 million deaths from capitalism" argument.

It assumes that other economic systems would generate equal productivity, economic and technological success while also developing the political and practical capabilities to solve the issues.

Communist countries hardly had a great record on avoiding deaths from famine, poverty, preventable disease, environmental pollution, malaria, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not ware of the Russian deaths you're referring to, BTW.

It's just Putin's propaganda.
Even people outside Russia buy it.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree it's facile, but it was in the equally facile context of the "20 million deaths from capitalism" argument.

Just like the "100 million deaths from communism" argument.

It assumes that other economic systems would generate equal productivity, economic and technological success while also developing the political and practical capabilities to solve the issues.

Communist countries hardly had a great record on avoiding deaths from famine, poverty, preventable disease, environmental pollution, malaria, etc.

I think there are any number of factors which figure into productivity, economic, and technological success, but to attribute it all to an abstract "system" just doesn't wash.

Also, considering the moral and intellectual bankruptcy associated with McCarthy, Hoover, and other such anti-communists, one has to question just how much of this anti-Soviet propaganda was actually fact versus how much was fiction.

 

[F1fan]

The current Ukrainian government is corrupt and created through criminal violent means:
Revolution of Dignity - Wikipedia

Your link doesn't refer to the current government. The current government was formed in 2019 and is a response to the corruption that your link refers to.

I suggest your link has more in common with the trump government than the governments of Obama and Biden, and my point is to illustrate that a functional democracy can still allow unethical people into leadership and corruption occurs. As we saw Zelenskyy would not allow trump's extortion in the infamous "perfect phone call". I suggest Putin invaded Ukraine in part because it was making anti-corruption reforms.

 

[F1fan]

It's just Putin's propaganda.
Even people outside Russia buy it.

I suspect you are correct. I'm seeing people sympathetic to Putin and trying to subtly justify the invasion.

 

[F1fan]

I agree it's facile, but it was in the equally facile context of the "20 million deaths from capitalism" argument.

It assumes that other economic systems would generate equal productivity, economic and technological success while also developing the political and practical capabilities to solve the issues.

Communist countries hardly had a great record on avoiding deaths from famine, poverty, preventable disease, environmental pollution, malaria, etc.

Most every nation and political/economic system has a history of problems. What is funny is how Stalin brought greater Russia from a broadly primitive nation into an industrial powerhouse in the 1920-30's. He really modernized the nation and did help it move out of a third world status. It helped Russia produce enough tanks and weapons to defeat the Germans. Post war the Communists never really understood how a higher standard of living would make citizens feel more fulfilled in life. Luxury and competition was misunderstood as human interests and motivation.

 

[Augustus]

Just like the "100 million deaths from communism" argument.

What would you say is an accurate figure for the great leap forward, cultural revolution, red terror, Stalin, gulags, holodomor, Khmer Rouge and all the rest?

I think there are any number of factors which figure into productivity, economic, and technological success, but to attribute it all to an abstract "system" just doesn't wash.

Also, considering the moral and intellectual bankruptcy associated with McCarthy, Hoover, and other such anti-communists, one has to question just how much of this anti-Soviet propaganda was actually fact versus how much was fiction.

McCarthy and Hoover didn't have much sway outside of the USA.

Much of the European left were still Soviet apologists into the 1980s.

 

[Augustus]

What is funny is how Stalin brought greater Russia from a broadly primitive nation into an industrial powerhouse in the 1920-30's. He really modernized the nation and did help it move out of a third world status.

Although the only reason he was able to modernise the nation was that he basically paid the West to do it for him.

It wasn't exactly a socialist miracle...

Engineers were invited from abroad, many well-known companies, such as Siemens-Schuckertwerke AG and General Electric, were involved in the work and carried out deliveries of modern equipment, a significant part of the equipment models produced in those years at Soviet factories, were copies or modifications of foreign analogues (for example, a Fordson tractor assembled at the Stalingrad Tractor Plant).

In February 1930, between Amtorg and Albert Kahn, Inc., a firm of American architect Albert Kahn, an agreement was signed, according to which Kahn's firm became the chief consultant of the Soviet government on industrial construction and received a package of orders for the construction of industrial enterprises worth $2 billion (about $250 billion in prices of our time). This company has provided construction of more than 500 industrial facilities in the Soviet Union.[23][24][25]

A branch of Albert Kahn, Inc. was opened in Moscow under the name "Gosproektstroy". Its leader was Moritz Kahn, brother of the head of the company. It employed 25 leading American engineers and about 2,500 Soviet employees. At that time it was the largest architectural bureau in the world. During the three years of the existence of Gosproektroy, more than 4,000 Soviet architects, engineers and technicians who have studied the American experience passed through it. The Moscow Office of Heavy Machinery, a branch of the German company Demag, also worked in Moscow.

The firm of Albert Kahn played the role of coordinator between the Soviet customer and hundreds of Western companies that supplied equipment and advised the construction of individual objects. Thus, the technological project of the Nizhny Novgorod Automobile Plant was completed by Ford, the construction project by the American company Austin Motor Company. Construction of the 1st State Bearing Plant in Moscow, which was designed by Kahn, was carried out with the technical assistance of the Italian company RIV.

The Stalingrad Tractor Plant, designed by Kahn in 1930, was originally built in the United States, and then was unmounted, transported to the Soviet Union and assembled under the supervision of American engineers. It was equipped with the equipment of more than 80 American engineering companies and several German firms.

American hydrobuilder Hugh Cooper became the chief consultant for the construction of the DneproGES, hydro turbines for which were purchased from General Electric and Newport News Shipbuilding.[26]

The Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Plant was designed by the American firm Arthur G. McKee and Co., which also supervised its construction. A standard blast furnace for this and all other steel mills of the industrialisation period was developed by the Chicago-based Freyn Engineering Co

Industrialization in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

What would you say is an accurate figure for the great leap forward, cultural revolution, red terror, Stalin, gulags, holodomor, Khmer Rouge and all the rest?

To me, it's not so much a matter of the figures (most of which are speculative exaggerations without that much hard data to support it). It's more a matter of attributing the causes of deaths to a particular "system," but since this tactic has been used as the central talking point and main criticism of communism, I would consider it fair play to turn the argument around and say "this is how many people are killed under capitalism."

That is, if we're using the same methodology to determine how many people die under a given system.

McCarthy and Hoover didn't have much sway outside of the USA.

Much of the European left were still Soviet apologists into the 1980s.

I don't know how you can say that. McCarthy and Hoover had a great deal of sway within the USA and over the US government, and if the US government had any sway at all in the rest of the world (and we both know they did), then it stands to reason that the ideals and principles of people like McCarthy and Hoover also held sway.

I don't think the U.S. left was so much into Soviet apologia or directly supporting communism as such. However, the bigger focus was on anti-anti-communism. It didn't mean they were communists or Soviet apologists, but they had grown fed up with the obsessive and paranoid nature of anti-communism as it had been practiced in the U.S.

 

[Augustus]

To me, it's not so much a matter of the figures (most of which are speculative exaggerations without that much hard data to support it). It's more a matter of attributing the causes of deaths to a particular "system," but since this tactic has been used as the central talking point and main criticism of communism, I would consider it fair play to turn the argument around and say "this is how many people are killed under capitalism."

That is, if we're using the same methodology to determine how many people die under a given system.

Given we had several regimes, all practicing offshoots of the same, explicitly violent Marxist-Leninist ideology that had a particularly callous approach to individual human life vis-a-vis "progress", that were all massive outliers in terms of deadliness, it would be somewhat curious to absolve said ideology of any blame and instead put it down to pure coincidence would it not?

Would you also absolve fascism and its offshoots of responsibility for the brutal nature of fascist regimes?

I don't know how you can say that. McCarthy and Hoover had a great deal of sway within the USA and over the US government, and if the US government had any sway at all in the rest of the world (and we both know they did), then it stands to reason that the ideals and principles of people like McCarthy and Hoover also held sway.

I don't think the U.S. left was so much into Soviet apologia or directly supporting communism as such. However, the bigger focus was on anti-anti-communism. It didn't mean they were communists or Soviet apologists, but they had grown fed up with the obsessive and paranoid nature of anti-communism as it had been practiced in the U.S.

European nations had their own debates and their own intelligence services. They weren't dependent on US domestic politicians to tell them about their own continent.