Amercians, anti-communist/socialist?

[pipboy-x11]

Lastly, population growth as a means and measure of sense is nonsensical. It's incredibly simplistic to hang the success of a society on one such measure, and there have been plenty of succesful societies throughout history with little native population growth (immigration almost always picks up, though).

Could you kindly share an example, please?

An inefficient system of taxation which limited income, an overstretched empire that could not be properly defended or ruled, constant power struggles, external pressures of aggressive new peoples trying to get in on the Roman wealth, major increases in army wages instated to guarantee individuals the support of said army to remain in power (which led to economic problems as inflation set in) were all major contributors.

First, this again is your own view. Which is no better or more tenable than mine.

Next, I've added the emphasis in bold - does it ring a bell?

Oftentimes external people with no agenda can see things more clearly than people inside the system.

I've been both inside and outside, so don't overestimate your vision.

 

[Brother None]

Surprise - sometimes in order to make a research on some culture or a country one needs to read the language. If one claims some deep knowledge of Russian history and argues like he has a clue with a someone who was born and lives here... and still can't read Russian at the same time, can't read a single document - he is just full of shit.

Huh? How is this reply even related to Santoka's post? It seems to be aimed more at me, which is funny, because I do read Russian, it's hard to be an MA student in Russian Studies and not read Russian. Also, I don't know what kind of education you have in your nation's history, but I assure you that if it is only a high school education then yes, I do know more of your country's history than you do. Just like a foreigner who specialized in Dutch history knows more of it than I do. "I live there" really isn't saying much.

I am aware of the complexities of Soviet demographics, in particular the receding count of Russians versus "minorities" (see Astrid Tuminez' Nationalism, Ethnic Pressures, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union) and in the fact that the population growth was receding by the end of the Soviet Union. It was not gone, though (nor does your source claim as much, though it does amusingly point to improvement over Imperial Russia, such as a decrease by 3.3 in overall mortality, and a whopping 10 factor decrease in child mortality.

In fact, your source does not prove what you seem to think it does. You'll note a receding population growth (and birth rate) not only from the 1960s onwards but in the antebellum era as well.
Besides, the linked source also recognizes population growth was still present in the Soviet Union by the time it fell. Haven't you been arguing an absolute relation between growing population and a state's health? If so, how does the Soviet Union's continuing population growth factor into that?

You seem to think I did not reply to your post because you posted a source I could not read. You assumed wrong, I did not reply because your point on population growth was extensively debunked, though you've again managed to ignore all the posts that effectively annihilate your point.

 

[pipboy-x11]

Huh? How is this reply even related to Santoka's post? It seems to be aimed more at me,

No. It was aimed at those who claim that my point is invalid because they can't read Russian while they can read your graph.

As to Indians and blacks - yes, that was me mocking your points about national problems in Russian Empire being linked to some problems of something I didn't completely understand.

In fact, your source does not prove what you seem to think it does. You'll note a receding population growth (and birth rate) not only from the 1960s onwards but in the antebellum era as well.
Besides, the linked source also recognizes population growth was still present in the Soviet Union by the time it fell. Haven't you been arguing an absolute relation between growing population and a state's health? If so, how does the Soviet Union's continuing population growth factor into that?

A steadily declining one. Those spikes in 1926 and 1950 are natural consequences of big wars with millions of losses. There is always a spike in growth after big losses. Europe has had the same after the Black Death, for example.

Please read paragraph 2. This one, (I'll translate): "Demographic situation began changing since 1960..." and further.

Also - everyone has somehow skipped the point about Gorbachev's prohibition in 1980s and why it was introduced.

Now, decline in the population growth in pre-war era somehow disproves my point? Could you explain - how exactly?

You seem to think I did not reply to your post because you posted a source I could not read. You assumed wrong, I did not reply because your point on population growth was extensively debunked, though you've again managed to ignore all the posts that effectively annihilate your point.

So far you've only succeeded annihilating my points in your own imagination, without moving further. Just as you've failed with guessing what I "seem to think" in your usual manner. I'm aware of the fact that you can read Russian, that's why I've given you that link. Sorry if my post somehow has given you a wrong impression.

P.S. As to your education - it was meant (as any other humanitarian education) to reflect the consensus of your society regarding some historical events. So no, it doesn't impress me a lot like being a source of some ultimate truth.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Now, decline in the population growth in pre-war era somehow disproves my point? Could you explain - how exactly?

If BN will let me.

It disproves this bit:

USSR was doing great too until 1960s

Which I believe was one of your original statements that sparked the argument. If we adopt population growth as the primary statistic on which to base our judgments, just as you suggest, then the declining population growth before 1960s means that the "problems" in USSR started way before something went wrong in the 60s, as you claim.

Not that I approve of the argument at all, because population growth is not an appropriate single statistic to measure a country's well-being. And I am yet to see an acceptable argument that declining population growth means decline in overall well-being.

 

[Brother None]

As to Indians and blacks - yes, that was me mocking your points about national problems in Russian Empire being linked to some problems of something I didn't completely understand.

That's nice, only I never indicated something is linked "somehow", I pointed you a multi-nationalities problem that was simply never resolved. It is not analogues to an American situation, it would be - say - the Americans were still slaughtering Native Americans now.
Your comparisons need polishing to be honest.

Please read paragraph 2. This one, (I'll translate): "Demographic situation began changing since 1960..." and further.

I have. There's a declining birth rate coupled with a declining mortality rate. This is an inevitability; whenever morality rate decreases, so does birth rate. You already cited the reason why the decline in birth rate took a while, because of the population boom following the Great Patriotic War.
It's a cold numbers article, it lacks the analysis you'd need to prove your point.

Also - everyone has somehow skipped the point about Gorbachev's prohibition in 1980s and why it was introduced.

Gorbachov's alcohol prohibition was a foolish, misguided notion, an attempt to artificial control of society not unknown to the USSR. Population experiments were, in fact, one of the hallmarks of the state, and Gorbachov's prohibition was another chain in the link of trying to improve the "new Soviet man". What is it supposed to prove?

Now, decline in the population growth in pre-war era somehow disproves my point? Could you explain - how exactly?

According to you, collapse follows inevitably on a declining population. This is not true. On two counts:
- Population statistics never follow linear trends, the Soviet Union had declining populations in periods of its existence without being near collapse.
- There was population growth in the SU by the end of its existence. Yes, it was receding (but stabilized) population growth, but it was population growth. You stated earlier "If the population can replicate itself - the system works well enough". The SU population had the capability of replacing itself, according to you, that means the "system works well enough".

So far you've only succeeded annihilating my points in your own imagination, without moving further.

Me? I didn't say I did, the posts replying to yours did. You seem to have missed them. Go back and read 'em.

Just as you've failed with guessing what I "seem to think" in your usual manner. I'm aware of the fact that you can read Russian, that's why I've given you that link.

Ah. Sorry.

 

[Sander]

Lastly, population growth as a means and measure of sense is nonsensical. It's incredibly simplistic to hang the success of a society on one such measure, and there have been plenty of succesful societies throughout history with little native population growth (immigration almost always picks up, though).

Could you kindly share an example, please?

Any pre-19th century city and both England and the Netherlands in their pre-modern economic primes (17th-18th centuries). Logically, a population grows when economic circumstances improve - but as a ceiling is hit, the growth often stops. (North)Western-European societies are helped by having a culture where people have generally married late (this is true throughout recent history, average 18th century age of marriage was 28 in the Netherlands).

An inefficient system of taxation which limited income, an overstretched empire that could not be properly defended or ruled, constant power struggles, external pressures of aggressive new peoples trying to get in on the Roman wealth, major increases in army wages instated to guarantee individuals the support of said army to remain in power (which led to economic problems as inflation set in) were all major contributors.

First, this again is your own view. Which is no better or more tenable than mine.

Next, I've added the emphasis in bold - does it ring a bell?

Actually yes, my view is better than yours as these are generally accepted reasons the Roman Empire fell, generally accepted by scholars on the subject. The fall of the Roman Empire was a multi-faceted issue, and you're simplifying it to try to pinpoint one reason you want to see. In fact, that is what you seem to be doing in all your arguments in this thread: simplifying the issue to point to a single cause you want it to point to.

Also, what about your emphasis? There is no military external threat to any Western European nation, nor are the taxation systems of the welfare states particularly inefficient, and even if they were those aren't issues specific to socialism - which was your point, remember?

I've been both inside and outside, so don't overestimate your vision.

Good for you, but you keep stating that people inside the system have to have a better knowledge of its history. That's nonsense.

So far you've only succeeded annihilating my points in your own imagination, without moving further. Just as you've failed with guessing what I "seem to think" in your usual manner. I'm aware of the fact that you can read Russian, that's why I've given you that link. Sorry if my post somehow has given you a wrong impression.

Actually, if you'd look at the people posting in this thread, you'll see that you're the only one imagining your points have not been debunked.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Gorbachov's alcohol prohibition was a foolish, misguided notion, an attempt to artificial control of society not unknown to the USSR. Population experiments were, in fact, one of the hallmarks of the state, and Gorbachov's prohibition was another chain in the link of trying to improve the "new Soviet man".

I'd disagree with you here. Surely, the attempt was half-asses and solved nothing, but I'd hardly call it "misguided". The attempt to "improve the new Soviet man" from this side was almost a necessity, given how much problem alcoholism has always been and continues to be in Eastern Europe. It might have been a foolish attempt to treat the symptom not the cause of the disease, but rather than a social experiment, I prefer to recognize it as an actual attempt to solve a major problem.

 

[pipboy-x11]

USSR was doing great too until 1960s

Which I believe was one of your original statements that sparked the argument. If we adopt population growth as the primary statistic on which to base our judgments, just as you suggest, then the declining population growth before 1960s means that the "problems" in USSR started way before something went wrong in the 60s, as you claim.

Ok, ok... enough neat-picking... I've overstated. Socialism began poisoning Russia since the very beginning of it. It has become obvious just as the WW2 and the subsequent spike in population growth were over - after 1960.

Better now? I've also obviously underestimated the fact that a lot of folks here will go ballistic over a thought that the word "USSR" could stand anywhere close to the word "great". How dare I...

Not that I approve of the argument at all, because population growth is not an appropriate single statistic to measure a country's well-being. And I am yet to see an acceptable argument that declining population growth means decline in overall well-being.

It doesn't mean "decline in overall well-being". It means that at some point, a point of no return, a critical mass, this given culture will just cease to exist. You know, it's possible to say that Roman Empire did not fall, that it existed in another form etc. But the Latin language is dead. No one speaks it - with a rare exception of those using it for mere amusement.

Any pre-19th century city and both England and the Netherlands in their pre-modern economic primes (17th-18th centuries).

Those countries were experiencing quite a big emigration at the same time. That means that the natural growth was positive.

Actually yes, my view is better than yours as these are generally accepted reasons the Roman Empire fell, generally accepted by scholars on the subject.

There are much more theories, actually, if you care to study the subject even at the most popular level.

Also, what about your emphasis? There is no military external threat to any Western European nation, nor are the taxation systems of the welfare states particularly inefficient, and even if they were those aren't issues specific to socialism - which was your point, remember?

Ok, I'll give you this one.

Good for you, but you keep stating that people inside the system have to have a better knowledge of its history. That's nonsense.

Have you forgotten to quote your own text on purpose? It was you who insisted that those who are outside have better knowledge.

Actually, if you'd look at the people posting in this thread, you'll see that you're the only one imagining your points have not been debunked.

So truth now is being decided by the number of votes?

 

[Sander]

Ok, ok... enough neat-picking... I've overstated. Socialism began poisoning Russia since the very beginning of it. It has become obvious just as the WW2 and the subsequent spike in population growth were over - after 1960.

Better now? I've also obviously underestimated the fact that a lot of folks here will go ballistic over a thought that the word "USSR" could stand anywhere close to the word "great". How dare I...

Ignoring any arguments made and then belittling your opponent's position isn't any way to debate.

It doesn't mean "decline in overall well-being". It means that at some point, a point of no return, a critical mass, this given culture will just cease to exist. You know, it's possible to say that Roman Empire did not fall, that it existed in another form etc. But the Latin language is dead. No one speaks it - with a rare exception of those using it for mere amusement.

The Latin language never died. The spoken language evolved into what is now Italian, French, Spanish et cetera. Languages aren't and never will be stable, but medieval English is as related to modern-day English as ancient Latin is to 15th century Italian.

Add to that, that for about a millennium Latin was the main written language, and it is still being taught.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

USSR did lots of things well, and lots of things poorly. Soviet-style socialism works well for giving a jump-start to a lagging-behind country, but poorly for further development, and sustaining what was achieved. The post-charismatic leadership lost its appeal when they failed to keep delivering hard results, results which were unobtainable under the Soviet economic model.

Better now? I've also obviously underestimated the fact that a lot of folks here will go ballistic over a thought that the word "USSR" could stand anywhere close to the word "great". How dare I...

It's not about what you said, but rather the fact that you said it w/o a good argument to support it. At this point I'm trying to rebuke your reasoning more than the statement. I'm fairly neutral-positive to USSR myself.

It doesn't mean "decline in overall well-being". It means that at some point, a point of no return, a critical mass, this given culture will just cease to exist. You know, it's possible to say that Roman Empire did not fall, that it existed in another form etc. But the Latin language is dead. No one speaks it - with a rare exception of those using it for mere amusement.

I am yet to see you link population growth statistics to that "critical mass" of yours. I simply don't see a direct relationship. It's a poor indicator, and most definitely not a cause.

As history shows us, no civilization can exist forever, they all go eventually. What's more important is the legacy left behind, and it's hard to underestimate the influence of Roman Empire on the future of Europe. I could thus easily argue that no culture can "cease to exist" unless it's completely isolated and crumbles for internal reasons. For example, Latin is far from dead, it lives on in other European languages. Barely anyone speaks Ancient Greek or Ancient Russian or Classical Chinese these days, and yet it'd be foolish to claim that the culture from those days is gone.

 

[Santoka]

It doesn't mean "decline in overall well-being". It means that at some point, a point of no return, a critical mass, this given culture will just cease to exist. You know, it's possible to say that Roman Empire did not fall, that it existed in another form etc. But the Latin language is dead. No one speaks it - with a rare exception of those using it for mere amusement.

Yet again you change the subject with a highly dubious statement. I don't even want to say that if you consider th RE still existed in another form, so has the Latin language through Latin languages. And anyway the RE only really fell with Constantinople, at which point its romans spoke mainly Greek. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT, again.

 

[pipboy-x11]

I'd disagree with you here. Surely, the attempt was half-asses and solved nothing, but I'd hardly call it "misguided".

Sorry - but the emphasized text is wrong.

That spike in the natural population growth in the end of the Soviet era explained by the prohibition.

Communists made an attempt to solve demographic problems by this law. And at some point they have even succeeded.

BTW, Brother None - thank you for this marvelous display of your eduction being nothing but a mirror of your society's consensus on Russia.

And anyway the RE only really fell with Constantinople, at which point its romans spoke mainly Greek. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT, again.

Well, what's the point, after all? Could you please clarify? I'm starting to think about myself being the point of discussion.

 

[Brother None]

BTW, Brother None - thank you for this marvelous display of your eduction being nothing but a mirror of your society's consensus on Russia.

What? I didn't say anything about the Russian Federation.

You have yet to reply on how your statement "If the population can replicate itself - the system works well enough" meshes with the late SU's still growing population, by the way.

 

[pipboy-x11]

BTW, Brother None - thank you for this marvelous display of your eduction being nothing but a mirror of your society's consensus on Russia.

What? I didn't say anything about the Russian Federation.

Jeez... Guys - BN, Ausdoerrt - don't be so politically correct, please. I'm not some sensitive feminist who runs screaming over some "macho" remark.

Aren't you the one, BN, who told me that Russian Empire, USSR and RF are basically the same thing? Something, BTW, that I'm completely agree with and something that is basis of my point - and I, frankly, tired of defending already, it's hard to talk to 4 people at once, merging posts accordingly to forum policy while everyone is being so fucking sensitive about all his words being answered and crying like a little girl when I skip something. As I've said before - I've made my point as clear as I could. Thank you for helping me in polishing it. If you don't share it - fine. You don't have to. But if you want me to acknowledge that I'm wrong - fat chance. I have my point and I don't give a fuck how many people share it.

 

[Sander]

Those countries were experiencing quite a big emigration at the same time. That means that the natural growth was positive.

There was emigration, *so* growth was positive?
If immigration doesn't count for population for growth, why does emigration?

There are much more theories, actually, if you care to study the subject even at the most popular level.

Very good. There are a variety of theories, and the generally accepted theory is a combination of several different reasons - none of which are socialism.

It's also interesting that you say there's a variety of theories and hence a lot of different reasons - yet you are the one who throughout this debate, on every single issue, keep simplifying things to a singular cause.

Have you forgotten to quote your own text on purpose? It was you who insisted that those who are outside have better knowledge.

No, I said that often an outsider can have a better view of the situation.
But that's beside the point. The point is that you keep repeating that someone's expertise is enhanced by being inside the system. That's what you've been claiming, and that's what I responded to.

So truth now is being decided by the number of votes?

Truth is not being decided by one guy shouting over and over again that he's right without any support, at the least.

Aren't you the one, BN, who told me that Russian Empire, USSR and RF are basically the same thing? Something, BTW, that I'm completely agree with and something that is basis of my point - and I, frankly, tired of defending already, it's hard to talk to 4 people at once, merging posts accordingly to forum policy while everyone is being so fucking sensitive about all his words being answered and crying like a little girl when I skip something. As I've said before - I've made my point as clear as I could. Thank you for helping me in polishing it. If you don't share it - fine. You don't have to. But if you want me to acknowledge that I'm wrong - fat chance. I have my point and I don't give a fuck how many people share it.

If you don't care how many people share it, why exactly are you debating it?

It's also beyond lazy to just ignore any arguments made and go 'Hey but I have my opinion so nyah!'

 

[Brother None]

Aren't you the one, BN, who told me that Russian Empire, USSR and RF are basically the same thing?

No, they aren't. My argument was that you can not lift out the USSR as the sole source of problems currently endured by the RF, as many of them were already present in the Russian Empire.
Do they share more similarities? Sure. But "basically the same thing" is a bit of a sweeping statement.

You have yet to reply on how your statement "If the population can replicate itself - the system works well enough" meshes with the late SU's still growing population, by the way.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Jeez... Guys - BN, Ausdoerrt - don't be so politically correct, please. I'm not some sensitive feminist who runs screaming over some "macho" remark.

Aren't you the one, BN, who told me that Russian Empire, USSR and RF are basically the same thing?

Not the point. Nothing about being "politically correct" - they're country names for different historical periods, and if we don't distinguish we'll lose track of who's talking about what. There may be general similarities between the three, but I wouldn't go as far as to completely merge them.

But if you want me to acknowledge that I'm wrong - fat chance. I have my point and I don't give a fuck how many people share it.

So much for a good debate.

 

[pipboy-x11]

If you don't care how many people share it, why exactly are you debating it?

I debated it to the point when I myself feel like it's complete and I've got nothing to add or remove.

You are not the only ones who read the forum and the thread. Someone might agree without saying and this is enough.

It's also beyond lazy to just ignore any arguments made and go 'Hey but I have my opinion so nyah!'

I don't make money from posting here so I suppose I can afford being somewhat lazy at NMA.

 

[Crni Vuk]

yes but it makes it hard to follow the discussion and particularly to read something in your comments when you are lazy about the quotes or explaining your point. Hence why some here didnt feelt very well when you said something like :

"USSR was doing great too until 1960s" and later rephrase your statement.

 

[Dragula]

Look at the chetnik go, criticising communism and everything.