Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In the Russian Arctic lies buried an unfinished railway built by prisoners of Stalin's gulags. For decades no-one talked about it. But one woman is now telling the story of the thousands who suffered there - and there is talk of bringing back to life the abandoned railway itself."
I didn't know that there was such theory, put forward by historians)))
To me it became quite obvious even after reading Archipelago.
When you are reading about the whole villages being exiled from Western European part to Siberia under pretense of *political* accusations, you get the picture. Same goes to some other ridiculous accusations of average citizens on so-called "political ground," (in spite of the fact that there were of course some legitimate political prisoners in Stalin's time.) It becomes clear after reading case after case, that someone somewhere gave an order on a national level to round up people and turn them into free labor as much as possible.
Well, when you operate under a socialist system, there is no incentive for people to exploit and develop these resources on their own. Hence, if the government wants to do it, they need to force people to do it with the "it's for the advancement of the nation" propaganda in full swing. I don't think anyone was going to voluntarily head to Siberia if the economic prospects were the same as staying where they were. American "manifest destiny" was completed and succesful, because people had the chance to build a fortune or gain personally from doing so. There was no such incentive in the Soviet Union.
Well, when you operate under a socialist system, there is no incentive for people to exploit and develop these resources on their own. Hence, if the government wants to do it, they need to force people to do it with the "it's for the advancement of the nation" propaganda in full swing. I don't think anyone was going to voluntarily head to Siberia if the economic prospects were the same as staying where they were. American "manifest destiny" was completed and succesful, because people had the chance to build a fortune or gain personally from doing so. There was no such incentive in the Soviet Union.
NJ, this is American outlook on things ( it's a not a putdown, just a statement) or rather projection, but you can't project American ideas onto Russia, since it's obviously not one and the same thing.
America didn't have serfdom, it didn't have suffocating monarchy, and on top of that America was an offshoot of a nation that historically had middle class ( I am talking about Great Britain,) where it was not a case with Russia. Middle class is basically what makes Western cultures Western cultures; it's a substantial amount of people who have money and therefore these people are capable to influence politics with their decisions, and their rights ( and money) are protected under the law. Western cultures served already long time ago as accumulative centers of capital, and America was not an exception, but she rather became the new hub of banking business after London. Russia on another hand ( before revolution) was in situation of semi-colonial country, where 60-70% of capital invested in development of natural resources ( metals, mining, oil) was Western capital, and Russia's debt kept on mounting, particularly after the WWI. So when Bolsheviks ( Lenin et al) after the revolution refused to pay the debt of tzarist Russia, they had nowhere to turn for financing, while their country was thoroughly destroyed by the civil war and WWI. Here is from Wikipedia;
"At the end of the Civil War, the Russian SFSR was exhausted and near ruin. The droughts of 1920 and 1921, as well as the 1921 famine, worsened the disaster still further. Disease had reached pandemic proportions, with 3,000,000 dying of typhus alone in 1920. Millions more were also killed by widespread starvation, wholesale massacres by both sides, and pogroms against Jews in Ukraine and southern Russia. By 1922, there were at least 7,000,000 street children in Russia as a result of nearly 10 years of devastation from the Great War and the civil war.[57]
The Russian economy was devastated by the war, with factories and bridges destroyed, cattle and raw materials pillaged, mines flooded, and machines damaged. The industrial production value descended to one seventh of the value of 1913, and agriculture to one third. According to Pravda, "The workers of the towns and some of the villages choke in the throes of hunger. The railways barely crawl. The houses are crumbling. The towns are full of refuse. Epidemics spread and death strikes—industry is ruined."[citation needed]
It is estimated that the total output of mines and factories in 1921 had fallen to 20% of the pre–World War level, and many crucial items experienced an even more drastic decline. For example, cotton production fell to 5%, and iron to 2% of pre-war levels."
I hope you are getting a picture, so what "incentives" can you offer to surviving population, what kind of payments under these circumstances, when you have a gargantuan task of restoring the ruined country from a scratch, and not only restoring it to the pre-war level, but having in mind the new project of industrialization of previously 90% agrarian, underdeveloped country that tzarist Russia was?
It takes sheer determination and basically fanatic faith in new communist ideas not only from the government, but from ordinary Russians as well - at least many of them. I keep on quoting Russian literature, because in many ways it's the reflection of what Russians are, so here is yet another quote from a book that describes those times, and although some can call it sheer propaganda, propaganda alone couldn't accomplish anything without sincere faith.
"Man's dearest possession is life. It is given to him but once, and he must live it so as to feel no torturing regrets for wasted years, never know the burning shame of a mean and petty past; so live that, dying, he might say: all my life, all my strength were given to the finest cause in all the world -- the fight for the liberation of mankind."
N. Ostrovsky "How the steel was tempered."
Or you can read something like that; ( very gifted Soviet poet from the earlier period:
So you can't really compare your ( mostly) level-headed Anglo-Saxon with a Russian. The only Europeans you can compare with Russians are probably Germans, but with their Keizers, oppressive imperial government, poverty, philosophers and poets, the equation was pretty much the same - socialist revolutions and fanatic obsession with new ideas, leading to WWII.
Therefore it doesn't make much sense to say that "Russians should have done what we did" ( capitalism, money incentives and what's not,) because Russians simply didn't have the same options to begin with. They did what they could under the circumstances back in those times.
erasure, I wasn't implying that Russians "should have done what we did", more or less stating that under a socialist system there is no incentive for people to build factories and develop resources on their own. Since there is no incentive, it must be compelled and directed to happen. It was basically an affirmation of what you were saying was the underlying point of the gulag's, which was getting massed labor where the state needed it. Like I pointed out, no one in a quiet little farming village on the Volga is going to volunteer to head to Siberia and work in a mine or build a railroad, when there is no personal incentive to do so. I think the belief in a "greater national purpose" ultimately was a coping mechanism for people. This is essentially what the woman in the article who was there stated it was for the old workers.
erasure, I wasn't implying that Russians "should have done what we did", more or less stating that under a socialist system there is no incentive for people to build factories and develop resources on their own.
While it's true that for SOME people there will be never any other incentive but the material one, but spirituality indeed can serve as incentive for others. ( That's why I've quoted Ostrovsky's book.)
Quote:
Like I pointed out, no one in a quiet little farming village on the Volga is going to volunteer to head to Siberia and work in a mine or build a railroad, when there is no personal incentive to do so.
Probably not, ( may be that's why peasants were the most hated class in Stalin's Russia,) but if Stalin wouldn't have done what he did ( reshuffling people from West to East and putting foundation of the industrial base in the Eastern part of the country, the outcome of the WWII could have been very different.
That peasant in a quiet little farming village on Volga river couldn't have foreseen that survival of his nation was hinging on him ( and many like him) slaving in those mines and building railroads in Siberia. Throughout the whole history it was "do or die" thing for Russian peasant, whichever way you look.
While it's true that for SOME people there will be never any other incentive but the material one, but spirituality indeed can serve as incentive for others. ( That's why I've quoted Ostrovsky's book.)
Well, the first thing I would respond to that with is the old "opiate for the masses". That Marx guy was quite an interesting observer of social relations and the 'opiate' didn't need to be religion, it could be the state itself. I suppose I would argue that the "grander incentives" only get invoked when people are trying to find meaning in their suffering. Therefore I would say that your sentence should read "MOST people" and would reserve the "SOME people" for those who eschew the material for larger purpose. Of course, that "some" often has the choice over which to pursue.
Quote:
Probably not, ( may be that's why peasants were the most hated class in Stalin's Russia,) but if Stalin wouldn't have done what he did ( reshuffling people from West to East and putting foundation of the industrial base in the Eastern part of the country, the outcome of the WWII could have been very different.
That peasant in a quiet little farming village on Volga river couldn't have foreseen that survival of his nation was hinging on him ( and many like him) slaving in those mines and building railroads in Siberia. Throughout the whole history it was "do or die" thing for Russian peasant, whichever way you look.
All very true and this is probably the reason Stalin is so fondly remembered. His means did manage to create an end. Had that end been different, meaning losing the war, I think he would be remembered very differently by the Russian people. The victory lent purpose to the suffering, but that doesn't mean the suffering should be forgotten or not included in the discussion.
Thats an interesting story I never knew about. Makes me hate Stalin that much more. Its such a shame what the Soviet people went through under Stalin's rule. He was a monster. Ron
Well, the first thing I would respond to that with is the old "opiate for the masses". That Marx guy was quite an interesting observer of social relations and the 'opiate' didn't need to be religion, it could be the state itself.
Well...yes and no.
Heh, I've almost forgotten that "das Opium des Volkes" in political context belonged originally to Marx, however his observations don't quite cut it when it comes to Russian situation. Lenin was more down to a point when he described "opium for masses" - what Christianity in many ways meant for Russians. This is what he said;
"Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. "
So since suffering of Russians didn't come with Soviet system, but it goes back in centuries, Communism as a new religion ( because that's what it really was,) was offering a light at the end of the tunnel for Russians, while Christianity did not.
Quote:
I suppose I would argue that the "grander incentives" only get invoked when people are trying to find meaning in their suffering.
So are you saying then, that "grander incentives" only come to people who are familiar with suffering ( whatever suffering that might be)?
(And without pain and suffering the deeper meaning of life can't be perceived, therefore people unfamiliar with suffering will be happily satisfied by material rewards?)
Quote:
All very true and this is probably the reason Stalin is so fondly remembered. His means did manage to create an end. Had that end been different, meaning losing the war, I think he would be remembered very differently by the Russian people.
If Russians would have lost THAT war, do you think they'd be still around at all? I mean look at the thread about genocides; it's nothing new that some nations are targeted and wiped out, and whatever might be left of them is a poor shadow of the past. Knowing what Hitler's plans were for that particular part of the world, I don't think it would matter any longer how Russians would "remember Stalin" - differently or not.
Well...yes and no.
Heh, I've almost forgotten that "das Opium des Volkes" in political context belonged originally to Marx, however his observations don't quite cut it when it comes to Russian situation. Lenin was more down to a point when he described "opium for masses" - what Christianity in many ways meant for Russians. This is what he said;
"Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. "
So since suffering of Russians didn't come with Soviet system, but it goes back in centuries, Communism as a new religion ( because that's what it really was,) was offering a light at the end of the tunnel for Russians, while Christianity did not.
I think Communism offered something different and a chance for a better life then what existed under the Tsar. However, I think you know as well as I do that Russians didn't exactly foresake their religion in favor of the religion of Communism. While the state did it's best to suppress the power of the Orthodox Church, large segments of the population held onto their religion. What did they do to lift the spirits of the people besieged in Leningrad? They paraded an icon of Our Lady of Kazan through the streets and placed it on the battlements.
The macro point there being that people justify suffering by invoking greater purpose. The people who suffered building the railway in the article accepted it because they thought it would help the nation. However, I imagine those who were left naked for mosquitos to dine on before they died spent a good amount of time praying.
Quote:
So are you saying then, that "grander incentives" only come to people who are familiar with suffering ( whatever suffering that might be)?
(And without pain and suffering the deeper meaning of life can't be perceived, therefore people unfamiliar with suffering will be happily satisfied by material rewards?)
This is getting pretty philosophical, but yes and no. I think people seek the "grander incentives" as a way to justify their suffering in the absence of material reward, which in some cases, the reward may simply be ones life. Basically, most are satisfied by material reward, it is only when material reward does not exist that people look for the greater meaning.
Quote:
If Russians would have lost THAT war, do you think they'd be still around at all? I mean look at the thread about genocides; it's nothing new that some nations are targeted and wiped out, and whatever might be left of them is a poor shadow of the past. Knowing what Hitler's plans were for that particular part of the world, I don't think it would matter any longer how Russians would "remember Stalin" - differently or not.
I don't know, Hitler certainly tried and had plans to kill as many Russians as he could. Would he have ultimately succeeded, who knows. The point being that the suffering caused by Stalins actions are solely justified by Russians because they achieved an end. If that end had been different and the suffering for nought, then people would not as fondly remember him. Nicholas II for instance could not hold a candle to the suffering imposed by Stalin. However, Nicholas II isn't fondly remembered because he lost the war and was an incompetent ruler. The people who suffered under him had no greater purpose to their suffering.
"In the Russian Arctic lies buried an unfinished railway built by prisoners of Stalin's gulags. For decades no-one talked about it. But one woman is now telling the story of the thousands who suffered there - and there is talk of bringing back to life the abandoned railway itself."
The reason it is not finished is the Russian engineers learned that railroads built on permafrost do not last very long! You will find not much lasts on permafrost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
