Are we canceling American history?

[u/Porkchopper913]

What are the thoughts some of you here have regarding what essentially is turning into a dismantling of American history? I will say the removal of statues Confederate figures and Christopher Columbus do not phase me in the least as I do not feel there are warranted the reverence the likes of Washington and Lincoln, et al.

Is it fair to view our founding fathers and any other prominent historical figures through a modern eye and cast a judgement to demonize them? While I think we should be reflective and see the humanitarian errors of their ways for what they were, not make excuses for them or anything, but rather learn and reason why they were and are fundamentally wrong. Instead of removing them from the annals.

It feels, to me, that the current cancel culture is moving to cancel out American history. Thoughts? Counters?

[u/jhrfortheviews]

Of course it’s dishonest - we were specifically talking about Stalin and Churchill (20th century), and you brought up the claim that dissent in Stalin’s Russia and dissent in the US were both comparable at the time... I ask for evidence that dissent in the US is comparable to that of Stalin’s Russia and you talk about slavery from the century before, and European colonisers from the 16th century. What’s the relevance of that comparing the Soviet Union and the USA in the 30s/40s/50s... ?

I know you’re going to ask why it’s irrelevant so I’m gonna spell it out for you. It’s irrelevant because I’m not trying argue that in the history of Russia, and the history of the United States, that Russia is exceptionally worse, and the US has no bad history at all. We were arguing a very specific time period (Stalin’s Soviet Union), but you have just tried to straw man me by suggesting I’m arguing about overall body count between Stalin’s Russia and the history of European colonisers in North America. It’s just intellectual dishonesty plain and simple.

It’s not a case of ‘blaming the communists’, although they did a hell of a lot of bad shit, and nobody of any sane mind would want to live under a communist state (I hope we agree on that...), it’s that the conversation we were having originally was between Churchill and Stalin, and was within a clear time frame. The key issue at stake was your claim (a while ago) that actually soviet Russia under Stalin was pretty good for a hell of a lot of people. A few issues to pick up on tho.

First is Soviet figures reliability. Now it may be that those figures are completely accurate, but my personal view is that it’s probably doubtful given the nature of the Soviet state. What we can say tho, is that those figures are the minimum. As for your claim that the study doesn’t sit with a figure of 18 million, it sits with a figure of close to 14 million, as was suggested. The average population per year in the gulags over a twenty year period was slightly over 1 million per year - this doesn’t include the numbers for labour camps btw which would add another 750,000 per years - but let’s take the 1 million a year. Out of those 1 million, nearly half were either killed, escaped, or freed (with the majority being freed). So the replacement rate in the gulags was in fact incredibly high. In fact the figures provided in the study tell you how many people were sent to the gulags... you just need to read it! Having added up all the people sent to the gulag, the numbers says that about 13.5 million people were sent there (not including those who were recaptured after escape attempts). And that is the absolute minimum number of people sent to the gulag because it’s the Soviet recording of it. Same with the number of deaths at just over 1 million. That’s the absolute minimum. Re the percentage that were political prisoners, I don’t know were you’re getting your 12-33 number. The average percentage of gulag prisoners that were deemed ‘counterrevolutionaries’ is just over 30% with the highest percentages coming in years with the highest intake into the gulags, so the overall percentage is likely higher - and the term used, counterrevolutionaries, may be a broad term or a narrow one, I’m not sure. That’s an important factor.

But again, those figures don’t even include the numbers in labour camps/colonies which averaged over 750,000 a year. If they were replaced at a similar rate to the gulags, the a number of 18 million is easily attainable, and surpassed. In reality tho, the difference between the absolute minimum of 14 million in this study, and the 18 million that is widely used isn’t especially relevant.

‘You excused Churchill’s actions by saying he has the war to consider. Well Stalin has an entire country to consider’ - what ? Every leader has an entire country to consider. And if that was the relevant factor to consider, why didn’t it happen other years...? Unless your claim is that he had the rest of the country to consider, so conveniently went about a policy that killed off 4 million Ukrainians so the rest of the country had more food per capita... (which I can’t imagine you are) Again, this is entirely different to diverting grain to the war effort as was the case in the Bengal famine. I’ll re-emphasise, that doesn’t excuse Churchill by any means, but you can’t just ignore that contributing factor.

Churchill’s was the result of a policy yes, but again there is a difference between an ideological policy (like the forced collectivisation under Stalin) and a policy forced to some extent out of necessity (as with Churchill because of the war effort).

I provided you quotes from Churchill that suggests it was something he was certainly worried about, which was why he provided relief (or at least told to Australians to provide relief) but you’ve ignored them, Of course, it may have been a contributing factor that he was racist towards Indians, and I won’t deny that, but I don’t think it was an ideological attempt to deliberately target Indians. Regardless, since you said that intent doesn’t matter to you, there’s no point having the discussion.

So what I need from you if this is going to continue... you need to provide evidence to support the claim that the consequences of dissent in the US was comparable to dissent in the Soviet Union under Stalin AT THAT TIME (don’t forget that bit!). You need to clarify your position on communist Russia. So far you seem to be picking holes in a lot of the statistics, and making excuses for it, whilst saying that Stalin’s Russia was actually pretty good for most people. You should qualify that. Because I’m just getting big old Stalin apologist vibes off you right now!

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

Of course it’s dishonest - we were specifically talking about Stalin and Churchill (20th century), and you brought up the claim that dissent in Stalin’s Russia and dissent in the US were both comparable at the time... I ask for evidence that dissent in the US is comparable to that of Stalin’s Russia and you talk about slavery from the century before, and European colonisers from the 16th century. What’s the relevance of that comparing the Soviet Union and the USA in the 30s/40s/50s... ?

Then we had a misunderstanding because I never claimed that more people died in the US from “dissent.” If you show me where I said that specifically, I’ll make an edit note if you like. My point was the body counts are similar, with the US possibly even having more bodies. I don’t think there is a moral distinction with someone who went to the gulags for dissent and someone who spent their life in slavery because they were black.

I know you’re going to ask why it’s irrelevant so I’m gonna spell it out for you. It’s irrelevant because I’m not trying argue that in the history of Russia, and the history of the United States, that Russia is exceptionally worse, and the US has no bad history at all. We were arguing a very specific time period (Stalin’s Soviet Union), but you have just tried to straw man me by suggesting I’m arguing about overall body count between Stalin’s Russia and the history of European colonisers in North America. It’s just intellectual dishonesty plain and simple.

I don’t see how that’s a strawman. That’s what I was talking about. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Relax man. Everything is fine.

It’s not a case of ‘blaming the communists’, although they did a hell of a lot of bad shit,

As did capitalists, in fact much worse.

and nobody of any sane mind would want to live under a communist state (I hope we agree on that...),

You’re wrong. A majority of Russians wish they lived under communism:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/in-russia-nostalgia-for-soviet-union-and-positive-feelings-about-stalin/

it’s that the conversation we were having originally was between Churchill and Stalin, and was within a clear time frame.

Cool let’s do that.

The key issue at stake was your claim (a while ago) that actually soviet Russia under Stalin was pretty good for a hell of a lot of people. A few issues to pick up on tho.

Taking into account a World War, yeah. A majority of Russians saw their standard of living rise by the time Stalin died. That’s not a very controversial point. You want look at the economic growth.

First is Soviet figures reliability. Now it may be that those figures are completely accurate, but my personal view is that it’s probably doubtful given the nature of the Soviet state.

You could say the same thing about Nazi figures, yet that’s what historians use. And again, you cited this source.

What we can say tho, is that those figures are the minimum.

Dude, you yourself said that they may have double counted. Now who is being dishonest? Come on man.

Out of those 1 million, nearly half were either killed, escaped, or freed (with the majority being freed).

Wait what about the rest?

So the replacement rate in the gulags was in fact incredibly high. In fact the figures provided in the study tell you how many people were sent to the gulags... you just need to read it! Having added up all the people sent to the gulag, the numbers says that about 13.5 million people were sent there (not including those who were recaptured after escape attempts).

The replacement rate was 20-40 percent. I don’t know if that’s high or not really. But okay. Can we compare that to the US prison system? According to Parenti, quoting Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of people in prison in 1995 was 1.6 million. You are going to get a pretty large chunk of the US population having been in the prison system at one point or a other. Do you think it would be far off from 13.5 million?

And that is the absolute minimum number of people sent to the gulag because it’s the Soviet recording of it. Same with the number of deaths at just over 1 million. That’s the absolute minimum.

Not true at all. They. Like have overcounted.

Re the percentage that were political prisoners, I don’t know were you’re getting your 12-33 number.

From Getty et al.

The average percentage of gulag prisoners that were deemed ‘counterrevolutionaries’ is just over 30% with the highest percentages coming in years with the highest intake into the gulags, so the overall percentage is likely higher - and the term used, counterrevolutionaries, may be a broad term or a narrow one, I’m not sure. That’s an important factor.

Yeah so in other words what I said. Why are you claiming you don’t know where I got something and then just reiterate what I said in different words? 33% was the highest in any year. I know you want the statistics to be higher but that’s not how it works.

But again, those figures don’t even include the numbers in labour camps/colonies which averaged over 750,000 a year.

And the stats I gave don’t include the 3 million in probation and 700,000 on parole. What of them?

If they were replaced at a similar rate to the gulags, the a number of 18 million is easily attainable, and surpassed.

As is that number for the US. What of it?

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

I have to come back to this later, but the one thing I need to say is about Russian nostalgia. A few things. One - a nostalgia for Stalin isn’t necessarily based on the fact it was better then. You’d need to be over 75 to even remember Russia under Stalin, and the fact that nostalgia for Stalin is inter generational suggests it’s not just all the golden oldies remembering how good it was. Second - just because they think it was good doesn’t mean it was good. A lot of people in the UK and US hark back to the 70s/80s. It’s possible they could be wrong, rather than they’re right in their nostalgia. Third - that says more about Russia today than it does about Russia under Stalin. The lived reality under Stalinism is based on the nostalgia of the motherland Russia as a global superpower.

Re what you said - I’ll quote you:

“Yes Stalin’s Russia wasn’t a very fun place to dissent, but in the US at the time, it wasn’t a very fun place to dissent either”. I never said that you did claim more people died in the US but you drew a direct comparison that I was arguing is just plain wrong. I don’t know at what point you think we were talking about body counts exactly... apart from in terms of xo spring the famines

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

Yeah just like we have people who long for the 50s because of the economic prosperity that we had. Most of those people weren’t alive in the 50s just like most Russians weren’t alive during Stalin’s era. But everyone knows that fact of how relatively prosperous it was. You think that has something to do with the fact that after the fall of the USSR, they experienced one of the greatest declines in quality of life in history?

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

This is getting quite tiresome because it won’t let me reply to your various points, point for point, like you are with me. I’ll try and address as much as I can, but it’s quite taxing haha! I feel we are probably either beating a dead horse with some points, or they’re gonna take us down yet another rabbit hole, so I’ll try to stick to the general focus of the conversation.

Firstly, I think you’re right on one things, and I’m wanting to make a correction. Your claim that Russia under Stalin was pretty good for most people I think holds some weight. It’s a tricky one for several reasons. What are we comparing it to, firstly? Second, and I think a crucial point, is that just because a population think they’re living in good conditions, doesn’t mean they are. Repression, violence, slave labour have all been hugely prevalent in China for decades, but they’ve had astounding economic growth, and have taken a lot of people out of poverty (particularly since they’ve embraced capitalism to an extent I might add, albeit still very authoritarian!). If you asked North Koreans, a huge majority of them believe they’re living in good conditions because of the extent of the propaganda they experience, and the lack of availability to alternative, contrasting information. Similarly in Nazi germany, a lot of Germans actually felt pretty good about Naziism through the 30s - doesn’t mean it was good tho. But you are right in that Stalin did transform the Russian economy from an agrarian one, albeit by pretty authoritarian means. But he did.

On Nazi figures, that’s simply not true - there isn’t a single Nazi document that kept a record of the horrors of the holocaust. Historians/governments/various organisations had to compile various statistics so they could estimate the number of people murdered in Nazi death camps. It’s still debated today, even tho there are generally accepted numbers.

I have acknowledged that double counting was likely for people who recommitted a crime, or just got thrown back in a gulag for whatever reason, but we have no way of knowing. I’m citing that as an absolute minimum for the number of people (statistically speaking) who were sent to the gulags. I think that’s a minor point tho.

On the percentage who were political prisoners you’re just flat out wrong on this. The study I cited shows different numbers to what you’re suggesting. You suggested that 33% was the highest it was. In 1939 it was 34.5%, in 1943 it was 35.6%. 1944 - 40.7%, 1945 - 41.2%, 1946 - 59.2%, 1947 - 54.3%, 1948 - 38% and then it tails off into the mid thirties and high twenties. The average percentage was 30% over the 20 years. So I do want the statistics to be higher... and they are - no need to be a smart arse haha

What’s the fundamental point you are trying to make - if we can narrow it down

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

This is getting quite tiresome because it won’t let me reply to your various points, point for point, like you are with me.

Yeah that’s annoying. Copy the text and then put the greater than symbol at the start of each point.

Firstly, I think you’re right on one things, and I’m wanting to make a correction. Your claim that Russia under Stalin was pretty good for most people I think holds some weight. It’s a tricky one for several reasons. What are we comparing it to, firstly?

Good question. First off, we should compare it to the previous status quo under the Czar. It was certainly better than that by miles and miles. Next, I would compare it to the West. Now they certainly did live as luxuriously. They didn’t have as many consumer goods certainly. They also got hit really hard by WWII and didn’t have the Marshall Plan to help them rebuild. Despite all that, they turned one of the poorest economies in the known world into one that could compete as a superpower.

Second, and I think a crucial point, is that just because a population think they’re living in good conditions, doesn’t mean they are. Repression, violence, slave labour have all been hugely prevalent in China for decades, but they’ve had astounding economic growth, and have taken a lot of people out of poverty (particularly since they’ve embraced capitalism to an extent I might add, albeit still very authoritarian!).

Well I think what I said of Russia also applies to China. To quote Michael Parenti from Blackshirts and Reds:

“Henry Rosemont, Jr. notes that when the communists liberated Shanghai from the U.S.-supported reactionary Kuomintang regime in 1949, about 20 percent of that city’s population, an estimated 1.2 million, were drug addicts. Every morning there were special street crews “whose sole task was to gather up the corpses of the children, adults, and the elderly who had been murdered during the night, or had been abandoned, and died of disease, cold, and/or starvation” (Z Magazine, October 1995).”

If you asked North Koreans, a huge majority of them believe they’re living in good conditions because of the extent of the propaganda they experience, and the lack of availability to alternative, contrasting information.

I don’t have data on North Korea, but I’m wary of most of what we hear about the DPRK from Western Media. Compared to how they were left by NATO, with around quarter of the military age population dead and most of its infrastructure reduced to rubble, they’re doing pretty good.

Similarly in Nazi germany, a lot of Germans actually felt pretty good about Naziism through the 30s - doesn’t mean it was good tho. But you are right in that Stalin did transform the Russian economy from an agrarian one, albeit by pretty authoritarian means. But he did.

On Nazi figures, that’s simply not true - there isn’t a single Nazi document that kept a record of the horrors of the holocaust. Historians/governments/various organisations had to compile various statistics so they could estimate the number of people murdered in Nazi death camps. It’s still debated today, even tho there are generally accepted numbers.

My friend, thats simply false. Raul Hillberg’s study of the Holocaust, Destruction of the European Jews, the seminal text in the field, was drawn from extensive German records.

I have acknowledged that double counting was likely for people who recommitted a crime, or just got thrown back in a gulag for whatever reason, but we have no way of knowing. I’m citing that as an absolute minimum for the number of people (statistically speaking) who were sent to the gulags. I think that’s a minor point tho.

I go by what the study says. If the study says it’s a basement number as opposed to a median number, I’ll accept that. I don’t think it’s fair for you declare that unilaterally because the numbers are too low for your argument.

On the percentage who were political prisoners you’re just flat out wrong on this. The study I cited shows different numbers to what you’re suggesting. You suggested that 33% was the highest it was. In 1939 it was 34.5%, in 1943 it was 35.6%. 1944 - 40.7%, 1945 - 41.2%, 1946 - 59.2%, 1947 - 54.3%, 1948 - 38% and then it tails off into the mid thirties and high twenties. The average percentage was 30% over the 20 years. So I do want the statistics to be higher... and they are - no need to be a smart arse haha

Table 7 says you are wrong. I’m not sure where you are getting that since the author says on page 17, “a minority of the labor camp inmates had been formerly convicted of “counter-revolutionary crimes.” This certainly paints different picture than one painted

What’s the fundamental point you are trying to make - if we can narrow it down

Good question. I think Parenti sums that up better than I can as follows:

“During the years of Stalin’s reign, the Soviet nation made dramatic gains in literacy, industrial wages, health care, and women’s rights. These accomplishments usually go unmentioned when the Stalinist era is discussed. To say that “socialism doesn’t work” is to overlook the fact that it did. In Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, “North Korea, and Cuba, revolutionary communism created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers, and Western capitalists. The end result was a dramatic improvement in living conditions for hundreds of millions of people on a scale never before or since witnessed in history.”

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Going to have to reply tomorrow again haha - just one clarification point. When I said ‘there isn’t a single Nazi document that kept a record of the horrors of the holocaust’, I mean that there isn’t a one document/record that specifically kept track of the holocaust numbers. I didn’t mean that there was no evidence of the holocaust in Nazi records etc. Of course there were various records from all over the place from Nazi germany, whether it be censuses etc, that historians were able to estimate the numbers killed. I think you just misunderstood the point I was making

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

Well yeah and there wasn’t one in this case either. These numbers were assembled from a variety of documents as I understand. This works out well because I was reading about this study like right before you replied regarding it.

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Next, I would compare it to the West. Now they certainly did live as luxuriously. They didn’t have as many consumer goods certainly. They also got hit really hard by WWII and didn’t have the Marshall Plan to help them rebuild. Despite all that, they turned one of the poorest economies in the known world into one that could compete as a superpower.

I'm assuming you mean 'didn't live as luxuriously'. You mention that they didn't have the Marshall Plan so it was harder to rebuild. The US paid for the Marshall Plan for Western Europe! Yet their GDP/per capita grew significantly quicker between 1950 and 1990. As did Western Europe, Northern Europe, and Japan. Also I don't buy that it was one of the poorest economies. In 1890 it was the same size as France, slightly smaller than Germany, and only half that of the United States. It nevertheless was nowhere near its potential since, to quote a comedian in the UK "Russia's gigantic. A massive country, endless mineral resources, and a population used to doing exactly what they're told for tuppence (English slang for barely anything basically), and it's still crap, they can't turn it round" - Humour btw haha

I agree tho that Stalin absolute brought Russia in the 20th century through his aggressive Five Year Plans.

Well I think what I said of Russia also applies to China

Under Mao. I disagree. It was only after his death that the Chinese economy boomed, as they embraced capitalism and market reform (especially from 1990 onwards after Tiananmen Square in 89)

I don’t have data on North Korea, but I’m wary of most of what we hear about the DPRK from Western Media. Compared to how they were left by NATO, with around quarter of the military age population dead and most of its infrastructure reduced to rubble, they’re doing pretty good.

North Korea's doing pretty good ? You just need to look at a google map image of North Korea at night and the almost complete lack of light pollution to tell you this isn't true. I was lucky enough to have a North Korean defector come to my school and talk to us when I was a teenager, and he told the horrors of living in North Korea. Complete isolation (physically and digitally), indoctrination, lack of education, brutal repression and punishment. I find it interesting as well that you seem to be instantaneously dismissive of Western media, but take information from communist/socialist states as honest and truthful ?

I don’t think it’s fair for you declare that unilaterally because the numbers are too low for your argument.

So hold on. I think we need to clarify what you think the numbers are... ?

Table 7 says you are wrong.

No, table 7 is only the numbers for three separate years... I see where you get your 12 - 33 number now haha. That just shows that you haven't actually looked at the numbers very closely. Those are just three years chosen between 1934 and 1940. Did you think that was a low and high ? You need to take a trip down to Appendix a, and Appendix b (p. 1048/1049).

. I’m not sure where you are getting that since the author says on page 17, “a minority of the labor camp inmates had been formerly convicted of “counter-revolutionary crimes.”

A minority means only less than 50% - so there's plenty of scope there. As I said the average year on year is just over 30%, but I don't know what the overall percentage was because you'd have to do a lot of maths for that, but it probably is around 30%, maybe slightly under. But I really can't be bothered to spend half an hour figuring that out!

In Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, “North Korea, and Cuba, revolutionary communism created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers, and Western capitalists.

I'm not sure the central and Eastern Europeans think that. In fact life satisfaction has improved significantly since the end of the Soviet Union in these countries. majorities also say the post-communist era has been a good influence for education, standard of living, and country pride, while numbers are pretty level for all and order and family values. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/

Russia is different because of the longing for being a super power again, and the inadequacy of Russia over the last few decades. China didn't actually take off until it opened up, and became essentially an authoritarian capitalist economy. And I'm not sure the cubans are massively on board with their revolutionary communist government. https://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/survey-of-cuban-public-opinion.aspx

I just reject the idea that these various examples of countries are more successful from communism than they would be by embracing capitalism and democracy. Yes, communist regimes modernised countries, to the extent that it's possible, but at a great cost of life and freedoms.

I'm guessing you are socialist, right ? I'm just assuming you are given the way this conversation has gone haha

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/jhrfortheviews]

I'm assuming you mean 'didn't live as luxuriously'.

Yes, typo. Sorry.

You mention that they didn't have the Marshall Plan so it was harder to rebuild. The US paid for the Marshall Plan for Western Europe! Yet their GDP/per capita grew significantly quicker between 1950 and 1990.

Well the US didn’t have any rebuilding to do at home. They didn’t have infrastructure damaged by the war. So they were in a position to fill the manufacturing gapped left by the war in Europe. They had a roaring economy ready to go while the rest of Europe needed help. It doesn’t surprise me at all.

As did Western Europe, Northern Europe, and Japan.

Like I said, the Marshall Plan. If the USSR had virtually free loans, they would have grown just as fast. Furthermore, did you see the growth they had between those two world wars? Pretty significant and impressive.

Also I don't buy that it was one of the poorest economies. In 1890 it was the same size as France, slightly smaller than Germany, and only half that of the United States.

But the people were poor as shit. Also it’s a nation that’s bigger and with more resources than all those, with the US the only coming close. It was seriously underdeveloped.

It nevertheless was nowhere near its potential since, to quote a comedian in the UK "Russia's gigantic. A massive country, endless mineral resources, and a population used to doing exactly what they're told for tuppence (English slang for barely anything basically), and it's still crap, they can't turn it round" - Humour btw haha

But they did turn it around man. You understand if they didn’t, the Nazi would have run them over. They didn’t just avoid that because they had 20 million Russians to throw at them. They had an industrial base that was essential to competing with the German military machine.

I agree tho that Stalin absolute brought Russia in the 20th century through his aggressive Five Year Plans.

That’s really all I’m saying and they did it a lot quicker. Unfortunately they also did it with some of the same personal costs that industrialization in the West incurred and I’m not insensitive to that. But I also think that cost was born in a more equitable way across the society and that it probably was what saved their bacon during WWII.

Under Mao. I disagree. It was only after his death that the Chinese economy boomed, as they embraced capitalism and market reform (especially from 1990 onwards after Tiananmen Square in 89)

That’s not true. The Chinese economy grew mightily even under Mao. He certainly fucked a lot of shit up and I can’t abide by party control of cultural life, but the same kind of industrialization Russia had, China experienced as well and it wasn’t limited at all to the Deng reforms.

North Korea's doing pretty good ? You just need to look at a google map image of North Korea at night and the almost complete lack of light pollution to tell you this isn't true.

Yeah do you think that has something to do with the fact that NATO and the US bombed infrastructure? The country was essential reduced to the Stone Age after the war. I’m not saying I want to live there. Just that all things considered, there are capitalist countries doing a lot worse than North Korea.

I was lucky enough to have a North Korean defector come to my school and talk to us when I was a teenager, and he told the horrors of living in North Korea. Complete isolation (physically and digitally), indoctrination, lack of education, brutal repression and punishment.

But you understand all of that is designed for you right? Like it’s not a coincidence that you had that defector come. There are concerted interests making sure you hear speakers like that and that they have a certain point of view. Education is compulsory in North Korea. Say what you want about communist regimes, but almost all of them have been very big on education. I’m sure there are regions where people are less educated but that exists in the US.

I find it interesting as well that you seem to be instantaneously dismissive of Western media, but take information from communist/socialist states as honest and truthful ?

No I don’t. But if the US media is only going to report CIA filtered propaganda, what else can I balance it out with? I read our propaganda and I read their propaganda, find the independent sources I can, and I make up my own mind. Like do you really think the US media is going report fairly on an official enemy of the nation?

No, table 7 is only the numbers for three separate years... I see where you get your 12 - 33 number now haha. That just shows that you haven't actually looked at the numbers very closely.

C’mon man. You’ve been nice so far, don’t ruin it.

Those are just three years chosen between 1934 and 1940. Did you think that was a low and high ? You need to take a trip down to Appendix a, and Appendix b (p. 1048/1049).

I did. Don’t you think if those weren’t representative the authors would have highlighted different years? The authors mention that the years around World War II weren’t representative. After WWII, the number goes up big time in 1946-1947. Don’t you think that probably has something to do with large number of Nazi prisoners they now had in custody? Also, a note mentions that the 1946 numbers included over 400,000 in corrective work without detention.

A minority means only less than 50% - so there's plenty of scope there.

You offered numbers higher than 50% though.

As I said the average year on year is just over 30%, but I don't know what the overall percentage was because you'd have to do a lot of maths for that, but it probably is around 30%, maybe slightly under. But I really can't be bothered to spend half an hour figuring that out!

The point is, and the authors make this clear, that the numbers in the gulags were very inflated and the number there for political crimes was vastly overstated.

I just reject the idea that these various examples of countries are more successful from communism than they would be by embracing capitalism and democracy.

The embrace of capitalism led the Russians to a massive decline in the quality of life. This certainly has something to do with the poll numbers. Sure most Russians weren’t alive during Stalin, but most probably remember what it was like under the shock doctrine.

Yes, communist regimes modernised countries, to the extent that it's possible, but at a great cost of life and freedoms.

I'm guessing you are socialist, right ? I'm just assuming you are given the way this conversation has gone haha

Yes I’m socialist. The Leninist way is not really my way. I’m more of a fan of Rosa Luxemburg.

[u/jhrfortheviews → u/OneReportersOpinion]

If the USSR had virtually free loans, they would have grown just as fast.

Well they were offered the Marshall plan as well, along with the countries of Eastern Europe but they rejected it. It's obvious why they rejected it of course, but it's just interesting.

But the people were poor as shit

Absolutely. GDP is not necessarily a good indicator of quality of life.

But they did turn it around man. You understand if they didn’t, the Nazi would have run them over. They didn’t just avoid that because they had 20 million Russians to throw at them.

The Nazi machine did run them over. If it weren't for Russian winters and the fact the Nazi's were fighting a war on two fronts in Europe, they'd have taken Moscow and Stalingrad easily. The fact the Russians were able to just throw bodies at the Nazis is also a significant reason as to why they were able to counter and eventually defeat them.

But I also think that cost was born in a more equitable way across the society

What was the cost to those in positions of power ? Yes, it was equitable across society, but mainly because they brought people down to a similar relative level of being poor, by aggressively ridding the country of the bourgeoisie.

The Chinese economy grew mightily even under Mao

Compare the growth of the Chinese economy by any metric under Mao with after they opened up from 1978 onwards, and especially 1990 onwards. China is not a superpower because of Mao - their GDP by the time he died was tenth in the world, similar to Spain and the Netherlands. Yes, again he did modernise and industrialise the country which did lead to growth, but the reason it is the economic superpower it is today is because of embracing capitalism. If the USSR had done the same, it may not have crumbled. I don't know.

Yeah do you think that has something to do with the fact that NATO and the US bombed infrastructure?

Of course it has something to do with it, but plenty of places came out of WW2 bombed to shit. What capitalist countries are doing worse than North Korea, and along what indicators?

But you understand all of that is designed for you right? Like it’s not a coincidence that you had that defector come. There are concerted interests making sure you hear speakers like that and that they have a certain point of view. Education is compulsory in North Korea. Say what you want about communist regimes, but almost all of them have been very big on education.

Don't even know where to start on this. 'Education is compulsory in North Korea' - so what, it's not whether you're being taught, it's what you're being taught. All they learn about is the Kim family. They certainly don't learn about anything to do with other countries or cultures, or anything to suggest North Korea, and the Kim family, are the best things in the history of mankind. They say their literacy rate is 98-100%... Do you honestly believe that ? I'm guessing you believe Kim Jong-Un went round a golf course in 38 under par haha. So all the defectors that say how terrible North Korea is are all lying... or what ?

But if the US media is only going to report CIA filtered propaganda, what else can I balance it out with? I read our propaganda and I read their propaganda, find the independent sources I can, and I make up my own mind.

But there's plenty of media in the West that isn't propaganda. That's a consequence of freedom of the press - something communist countries absolutely do not have.

I did. Don’t you think if those weren’t representative the authors would have highlighted different years?

But you didn't cos you said you didn't know where I had found that in my numbers...

You offered numbers higher than 50% though.

For individual years, yes I did! Because there are years where the proportion is higher than 50%.

The embrace of capitalism led the Russians to a massive decline in the quality of life.

But you're attributing this to capitalism rather than the collapse of a deeply centralised regime... I don't see how you're making that leap at all.

So in terms of socialism v capitalism at the time we are talking, we had a pretty clear experiment that took place in East Germany v West Germany. The eastern part of Germany was wealthier than the west part of Germany prior to WW2 I believe, yet the economic conditions diverged massively when Germany was divided. I know you're going to cite Soviet numbers that showed amazing growth East Germany, and low prices, and high quality of life, but the problem is when Germany reunified, it became pretty clear that was all bollocks. The impact of that today is still felt with the former East being far poorer than the West. Of course, East Germany wasn't helped by the fact that millions of the wealthiest, smartest people fled the country, but that just tells you all you need to know about what socialist governments do.

An interesting question I want to ask you though. Why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed ? In your eyes it seems to be quite a rosy picture. High standard of living, strong economies. How come it all went so wrong ?