We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
London - the beating heart of our great nation
Comments
-
Economically, Communism did improve Russia, they moved from a backward 3rd world country to an economic powerhouse in less than twenty years. Unfortunately as you say freedoms were trampled on and destroyed, having said that, there are many millions of Russians who are poorer since the fall of the old regime and hanker for the old ways.
I would not call routinely having to queue for bread, nor going on a waiting list of several years for a car even for the few who could afford one, being part of an economic powerhouse. True most of them may not have been worse off than under the Tsars. But then we are talking about frying pans and fires, not about an acceptable quality of life for an industrialised nation in the latter half of the 20th century.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I would not call routinely having to queue for bread, nor going on a waiting list of several years for a car even for the few who could afford one, being part of an economic powerhouse. True most of them may not have been worse off than under the Tsars. But then we are talking about frying pans and fires, not about an acceptable quality of life for an industrialised nation in the latter half of the 20th century.
Indeed, and that's not not to mention the prospect of a 9mm slug in the back of the head from a Makarov, or freezing and starving to death in a Siberian labour camp for daring to question the latest traktor production figures.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I would not call routinely having to queue for bread, nor going on a waiting list of several years for a car even for the few who could afford one, being part of an economic powerhouse. True most of them may not have been worse off than under the Tsars. But then we are talking about frying pans and fires, not about an acceptable quality of life for an industrialised nation in the latter half of the 20th century.
Not many had a car in 1930's Britain (queue or not).Economically, Communism did improve Russia, they moved from a backward 3rd world country to an economic powerhouse in less than twenty years.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
As the General suggests, Lenin and hist gang of murderous thugs came to power at a time when industrialisation and scientific progress were starting to spread across the world. A better comparison would be with countries like France, Germany or the USA, not with how things had been under a feudal absolute monarchy.
OK let's make that comparison.
By 1940 Russia had a 85% literacy rate and was the 3rd largest industrial power in the world, behind only Germany and The USA, so ahead of GB and France. My point is that Russia great strides economically at the expense of much freedom and suffering (I guess not all suffered though and many probably saw an improved standard of living).'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Not many had a car in 1930's Britain (queue or not).
Not many in the USSR had a car in the 1980sNo-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Not many in the USSR had a car in the 1980s
But my whole point was the initial improvement within the first 20 years after the revolution, . No wonder there were many new members of western communist parties and even the fermentation of treachery in the establishment.
This was what was happening in GB then.
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
OK let's make that comparison.
By 1940 Russia had a 85% literacy rate and was the 3rd largest industrial power in the world, behind only Germany and The USA, so ahead of GB and France. My point is that Russia great strides economically at the expense of much freedom and suffering (I guess not all suffered though and many probably saw an improved standard of living).
For the mealy mouthed 'much freedom and suffering', read 'the deaths of an estimated 20 million people'.
Yes, 20 million.
And for all the twaddle about 'an improved standard of living' for the average Russian that meant two beetroot instead of one. 'Third largest industrial power'; my backside!0 -
Indeed, and that's not not to mention the prospect of a 9mm slug in the back of the head from a Makarov, or freezing and starving to death in a Siberian labour camp for daring to question the latest traktor production figures.
During the Tsars there was that kind of repression anyway. The Communists continued it and kept the country like a police state as it already was one. I'm not sure any communist countries formed in places that were't feudal states or dictatorships first.Economically, Communism did improve Russia, they moved from a backward 3rd world country to an economic powerhouse in less than twenty years. Unfortunately as you say freedoms were trampled on and destroyed, having said that, there are many millions of Russians who are poorer since the fall of the old regime and hanker for the old ways.
Everyone's quick to condemn everything that Communism did but without considering the horrible world that came before it and rather worryingly after it. As regards their lack of cars, they got a lot of priorities right. No cars or TVs till everybody had blankets and floorboards.
When Albania gave up its particularly odious form of Stalinism it went for a catastrophic version of capitalism and it baffles me where they found the reserves of patience to stick with it.
Life expectancy's falling in Russia now. Capitalism's fine if you can get it to work properly in the real world.There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
During the Tsars there was that kind of repression anyway. The Communists continued it and kept the country like a police state as it already was one. I'm not sure any communist countries formed in places that were't feudal states or dictatorships first.
.
That rather depends how you define a feudal state. I wouldn't apply it to Hungary, to pluck one name at random. It may not have been utopia, but it was hardly Tsarist Russia
I'm still waiting to see how long a poster going misty-eyed over the 'triumphs' of National Socialism would last before being banned.0 -
Mainly in the east, where the Soviets failed to denazify their occupation zone on the grounds that offering them (imposing, actually) a "21st century form of government" would trump Naziism.And there is a troubling number of Germans, both young and old, who wouldn't be too fussed if the National Socialists were back in power, either, so that is a pretty banal argument.
.
I though it was run by fascists before the Communists took over.That rather depends how you define a feudal state. I wouldn't apply it to Hungary, to pluck one name at random. It may not have been utopia, but it was hardly Tsarist Russia
I'm still waiting to see how long a poster going misty-eyed over the 'triumphs' of National Socialism would last before being banned.
And no, I'm not misty-eyed. I 'd struggle to think of a communist country I might find bearable to live in. Some communist states were worse than the Nazis in terms of the proportions of people they killed. Not just Stalin. Are the 20 million deaths due to mass slaughter or adoption of crackpot genetic theories in cropbreeding?
Nevertheless, I can't imagine even someone as barmy and twisted as Hitler wouldn't have thought that Pol Pot had completely lost the plot.
Oh and northern Europe's not perfect either but I'd rather live in a country run like a Scandinavian one than what we've got now. Not just me; we all deserve to.
Totally agree with the juvenile politician points by the way. There's a reason the word senator resembles the word senior.There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards