Jump to content

Good Article to read (attempt at continuation)

Recommended Posts

Who was defending Shatner?  Talk about straw-manning xP


DS9 has Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks), who is absolutely awesome as 'captain' (technically commander, since he's got a space station).


I'm starting to think you people haven't even seen DS9.

The only two Star Trek captains worth idolizing are Shatner and Stewart; Stewart wins.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



That was admirably cogent and on-point.



I would only add that its not just Capitalism.  


For example, The Soviet Union had ample problems with racism (and sexism, and so forth).  The Russian distinction between 'ethnic Russians' and other Ukrainians today is the same attitude led to the Holodomor.


I wanted to re-visit this as I have recently done some research on this context. First of all we can frame Holodomor in its place in time. Holodomor was massive starvation in the Soviet Union taking place mostly in Ukraine. The direct culprit for this starvation is the forced requisitioning of grain under Stalin. A policy that was a reversal from Lenin's "New Economic Program" or NEP. A policy that took in to account the Soviet Union's "backwardness"(productivity[progress in to capitalism]) and realized that there has to be a few things: 

1. Model farms. Some large land holdings would not be expropriated by the state to provide models of organization/production for other farms. (i.e. would still be capitalist)

2.Private ownership was left to some extent in place. Much of the product produced would be owned by the owners of the tools of production(i.e. would still be capitalist).


These steps were necessary for the Soviet Union to develop enough so that socialism was possible. Because their technological level at that point was not robust enough to liberate everyone from necessity. The NEP also signaled a departure from the previous policy of "war communism" which was forced expropriation of all private lands. This policy failed for a number of reasons. The most important being that

1.Many farms did not increase or even maintain levels of production, because they knew they would not be entitled to the product of this labor during "war communism".

2.State ownership of the land was not the mandate received from the country. The peasants wanted redistribution of land. They wanted practical economic implementation of the political "liberation of the peasants" that happened awhile before. They wanted their own plot of land where they didn't have to give a big chunk of their labor to some landlord who didn't do shit but be born in to the right family. In fact many peasant militias before, during, and after the revolution seized land and distributed it. The Bolshevik government instead went against these movements and nationalized all the land. A policy that wouldn't be reversed until NEP.


Lenin dies, the individuals in the party who supported NEP (Bukharin and Rykov) are persecuted as "kulaks". And Stalin makes Kulaks in to a thing even though by this point there are probably no Kulaks left. And Stalin returns to "war communism".

One can explain this move as the external result of Stalin's internal plays for power(in order to crush the "right" he had to implement non "right" policies).

It can also be explained through Stalin's pettiness and cruelty that he was sent to expropriate people's grain and kill people who held back during "war communism". So he was not having his revenge on people who had not bent to his will.

It can also be explained as one of Stalin's misunderstanding's of Marxism (this theory is unlikely because it assumes Stalin thought he was a good guy) that he felt socialism was possible in such an underdeveloped country.

It can also be explained by Stalin's focus on industrialization.

So the why is a confluence of conditions: Stalin's need for industrialization at all costs, coupled with the need to pragmatically destroy political allies, and the existence of a group of people who had wealth he could use to industrialize who had "wronged" him (peasants).


Stalin stole their grain to the point they did not have seeding grain. He sold the grain to foreign countries and used the money for his industrial pet projects. At the same time he locked down travel throughout the USSR and he already had an iron grip on the media. So the story of Holodomor got less press than it deserved.


I do not necessarily think race or ethnicity played too large a part.


I would argue that this was in fact a result of an upper class attempting to extract the wealth of a subordinate class. It is not technically "capitalism" because there is not profit per se.....but....pretty much a highly intensified capitalism hidden in socialist euphemisms. So the root cause claim still applies.





 The Jewish experience of the Soviet Union was... complicated... but included oppression of Judaism (as a religion), pogroms during the civil war, and later widespread anti-semitism under Stalin.  (Lenin was welcoming to the Jews to a degree, but mostly so long as they gave up any real Jewish identity, including attempts to squash nascent Zionism.)

I would like to add a little context to this as well. Lenin was first of all part Jewish. And secondly the Tzars were anti-semitic as FUCK! They became more and more anti-semitic as they lost their grip on power. To be straight up honest even if I was some wealthy industrialist in Russia just before and during the civil war: If I was a Jew I would most certainly side with the reds over the whites. The white army composed of monarchist and militarist elements was all about killing Jews. This also meant that revolutionaries were disproportionately Jewish, because the alternative was death or exile, leading to the right in every country(including the US) continually referring to the revolution with anti-semitic epithets. But you seem to be under the impression that the revolution as perceived by Jews at the time was threatening. I disagree, I think the exact opposite is true: Russian Jews were either choosing which country to go in to exile in or which revolutionary party to join as the czar's pogroms accelerated.


Stalin on the other hand was absolutely an anti-semitic genocidal maniac. He utilized anti-semitism to oust Kamenev and Zinoviev. And it became a more and more dominant piece of his platform as time went on. Stalin represents both thermidor and bonapartist stages of the revolution. Much like Napoleon he become the embodiment of what the revolution fought against, but had to couch his domination in the discourse of the revolution.


So instead of saying "I'm going to rob all the peasants worse than the czar and landlord ever did. Then use that money to bestow gifts on the upper echelon of bureaucrats, just like feudalism!"

He said "Kulaks are the class enemy and we must confiscate their wealth for socialism."


So I still think the root cause claim can apply. Its a question of how you establish what they were doing:

1. Take their word for it?

2. Analyze how it practically played out and label it yourself

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...