Looking into the shadows of the history of Christianity

[Milla]

Milla, the Russian Revolution was one of the most terrible crimes of history. It was done in the name of communism, a body of doctrines which has already lured many people away from God. Unsurprisingly, in its name the revolutionaires commited unspeakable crimes against religious people, especially women.
Worse than this, only the state of the Russia and neighbouring countries for the decades after it.

Sadly, communism is still alive in the minds of many. It is our duty as Christians to fight this evil with complete conviction.

You need to read up on your Russian history, Lifesaver. What do you think life was like for the people before the Revolution? It was no better. The events that occurred after the October Revolution were merely "the old boss is the same as the new boss." I cannot, for the life of me, see any problem with deposing the corrupt, petty, ineffective, uneducated, idiot tsars and nobles from power and replacing them with a government of the people. Unfortunately, that "government of the people" was filled by people of the same calibre as the tsars they had replaced. The tragedy here is not that the Revolution occurred, but that it did not change anything.

 

[Zug-Zwang]

Now, now. Messianic Judaism is certainly a most peculiar form of "Christianity"...

Thanks for the exposition of your beliefs, Zug.

Yeah I always say way too much don't I,My ex-wife always told me,Less is more,less is more.I don't believe in Messianic Judaism allthough I am Messianic.I don't consider myself part of Christianity anymore either.Niether will accept me,So I don't accept them either.

 

[armyman_83]

Do you know that or have you been told by someone to think that?

GOD IS NOT A RESPECTOR OF PERSONS!

look dude, read your Bible.

What commuion does darkness have with light?

Did not David have to slay the Heathen utterly?

Why should those who wish destory the Jews live in there nation?

 

[Douger]

What commuion does darkness have with light?

none,
sorry I'm not understanding your point

Did not David have to slay the Heathen utterly?

no he didn't
And didn't Jesus die to save them?

Why should those who wish destory the Jews live in there nation?

What makes it an exclusively Jewish nation? There are a number of good religous Jews who are giving their lives to help the arabs that are being opressed by the Israeli government.

 

[Albion]

You need to read up on your Russian history, Lifesaver. What do you think life was like for the people before the Revolution? It was no better. The events that occurred after the October Revolution were merely "the old boss is the same as the new boss." I cannot, for the life of me, see any problem with deposing the corrupt, petty, ineffective, uneducated, idiot tsars and nobles from power and replacing them with a government of the people. Unfortunately, that "government of the people" was filled by people of the same calibre as the tsars they had replaced. The tragedy here is not that the Revolution occurred, but that it did not change anything.

Before the Revolutions, Russian farmers owned an average of 135 acres and exported food to the rest of the world. That never happened under the Soviets. The czar was an autocrat but he did not control every aspect of one's life as any totalitarian regime does or tries to do. Religion was not outlawed! Emigration was permitted. Russian schools were admired throughout Europe. And so on. When comparing non-democratic governments, it is easy to say that everything is the same since we are looking at dictators, but underneath that starting point, they are not at all the same.

 

[Milla]

Before the Revolutions, Russian farmers owned an average of 135 acres and exported food to the rest of the world.

KULAK farmers owned an average of 135 acres. Please look into the conditions of the emancipated serfs who became peasants under late tsarist rule. They are not included in this average as they were not considered "farmers", and they far outnumbered the kulaks.

The czar was an autocrat but he did not control every aspect of one's life as any totalitarian regime does or tries to do.

It depends on which tsar you are talking about. Some did, others didn't. Alexander II was halfway decent. Peter the Great was totalitarian. There's a spectrum here, subtleties that are being lost in your generalization.

Religion was not outlawed!

Some religion was not outlawed. In any case, religion was not outlawed during Soviet times. It was made prohibitively difficult to practice in an organized fashion. Which, I might add, the Empire did to many non-Russian Orthodox religions at various times.

Emigration was permitted.

Some emigration was permitted. The borders weren't wide open as you are implying.

Russian schools were admired throughout Europe.

Russian schools continued to be excellent under Soviet rule and continue to be excellent, despite averse conditions. This does not relate to this discussion.

And so on. When comparing non-democratic governments, it is easy to say that everything is the same since we are looking at dictators, but underneath that starting point, they are not at all the same.

Really? How was Ivan Grozniy's rule significantly different (or better) from Stalin's?

What you need to understand is that while the figureheads (and the professed ideology) changed from Empire to Soviet and from Soviet to Federation, the people running things are the same people. The bureaucrats from the Empire continued to do their jobs into the Soviet era, and the Soviet era bureaucrats are running things now. Putin was a KGB paper-pusher, for heaven's sake!

 

[Albion]

KULAK farmers owned an average of 135 acres. Please look into the conditions of the emancipated serfs who became peasants under late tsarist rule. They are not included in this average as they were not considered "farmers", and they far outnumbered the kulaks.


It depends on which tsar you are talking about. Some did, others didn't. Alexander II was halfway decent. Peter the Great was totalitarian. There's a spectrum here, subtleties that are being lost in your generalization.


Some religion was not outlawed. In any case, religion was not outlawed during Soviet times. It was made prohibitively difficult to practice in an organized fashion. Which, I might add, the Empire did to many non-Russian Orthodox religions at various times.


Some emigration was permitted. The borders weren't wide open as you are implying.


Russian schools continued to be excellent under Soviet rule and continue to be excellent, despite averse conditions. This does not relate to this discussion.


Really? How was Ivan Grozniy's rule significantly different (or better) from Stalin's?

What you need to understand is that while the figureheads (and the professed ideology) changed from Empire to Soviet and from Soviet to Federation, the people running things are the same people. The bureaucrats from the Empire continued to do their jobs into the Soviet era, and the Soviet era bureaucrats are running things now. Putin was a KGB paper-pusher, for heaven's sake!

You've strained hard to make a case for the goodness of one of the worst regimes in world history, but in my view it didn't work. To almost every point where we both know that the Leninist and Stalinist eras were a disaster you answer that under the Tsardom it was better but not so much better, not for every last person, not all the time. Well, OK, no one was holding up the Romanovs to be enlightened democrats, but if we are to compare--as we are doing--it is clear that even you cannot deny that the Revolution meant a turn for the worse in Russian history. By the way, if you have to go back two hundred years to Peter the Great to find someone to use for your argument, it only proves my point.

 

[Milla]

You've strained hard to make a case for the goodness of one of the worst regimes in world history, but in my view it didn't work.

Where did I make a case for goodness? Nowhere was there any goodness. There hasn't been any goodness since 1509.

To almost every point where we both know that the Leninist and Stalinist eras were a disaster you answer that under the Tsardom it was better but not so much better, not for every last person, not all the time.

In tsarist times was better for a handful of kulaks, and the aristocracy. Under Soviet dominion it was better for a handful of factorymen and women and for the new Soviet elite. Same difference. It's just a difference in who's being oppressed. Are you wilfully misunderstanding me? Or do you think the aristocracy actually had a grant from God to live so much higher than the narod?

Well, OK, no one was holding up the Romanovs to be enlightened democrats,

The Romanovs weren't the only tsarist regime, by the way, as a casual perusal of actual history and not just Western tabloid sources would reveal.

but if we are to compare--as we are doing--it is clear that even you cannot deny that the Revolution meant a turn for the worse in Russian history.

I can't see it as a turn for the worse, because I'm (naturally) actually familiar with Russian history. If you're basing your view of the Revolution on Cold War propaganda and the movie Anastasia, yes, the Revolution does look pretty bleak. My point is that for the average person in the Russian Empire, life did not change much for the better or worse with the Revolution. Seek out some primary sources and educate yourself. Read some diaries, journals, letters from the period.

Not that it makes any difference whether the Bolshevik Revolution was a change for the worse. The Revolution was going to happen one way or the other, whether it be Bolsheviks or some other fringe group leading it. The population was simply fed up, and Nicholas II's performance in WWI was the proverbial straw.

By the way, if you have to go back two hundred years to Peter the Great to find someone to use for your argument, it only proves my point.

I don't, I just assumed you'd know who he was. Let me go from Peter the Great right up to Nikolas II's abdication.

Peter the Great - textbook totalitarian. He wanted to control every aspect of society and mold it to his image of greatness.
Catherine - Did absolutely nothing.
Peter II - Petty tyrant and idiot. Did away with Peter I's reforms and didn't replace them with anything else. Died young.
Anne - Overcompensated for the popular view of her as a figurehead by using the secret police to terrorize any critics. Expanded Russian Empire into Central Asia, which went really great for the Central Asians, I'm sure.
Ivan VI - Infant. Literally.
Elizabeth - A fairly bright spot, in that the coup she led was nearly bloodless and she didn't use terror tactics on her opponents. Founded universities and fostered the arts and education. Could have done more had she spent less time partying.
Peter III - Mentally ill. In love with Prussia - conceeded Russian Empire lands to them, and tried to force the Orthodox Church to become Luthern. Attacked Denmark for no readily logical reason. Ruled for six months.
Catherine II - started her reign by strengthening rule of law, rights of the people, building public schools, etc. Then was freaked out by France's revolutionary activities and turned into a tyrant.
Paul - Rolled back some of Catherine's crazier tyrannical laws, which was good, and improved the legal status of the peasantry. Passed laws promoting better treatment of the serf class (slaves), in a measure that defines "half-way decent". Domestically, was one of the few who showed any decency. Internationally, attempted to attack both Great Britian and India, in two of the stupider incidents in Russian history. Built a supposedly assassination-proof fortress to live in. Was assassinated.
Aleksander I - Professed lofty ideals. Recanted previous protections of peasantry and serfs. Made heavy use of secret police against any critics. Destroyed most of the progress Elizabeth and Catherine had made in public education.
Nikolas I - "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality." Terrorized opponents and supposed opponents with the Third Section. Expanded the network of infomers and spies to a previously unknown level. Began a program of state control of all publication - total censorship. Supressed non-Rus' culture and religion. Got into really stupid fights with the Ottoman Empire.
Aleksander II - The only Tsar of whom I can actually approve in any way. Emancipated the serfs. Attempted to put into place a constitution and system of rule of law. Unfortunately, he also almost unbelievably brutally put down dissent in Poland. Was assassinated by a nihilist Pole.
Aleksander III - Freaked out by his father's death, rolled back rule of law reforms and cancelled the move toward a constitutional monarchy, ergo probably making him largely responsible for the later Revolution. In another interesting twist, executed Lenin's older brother, which is what made Lenin join revolutionary political movement.
Nikolas II - seemed like a nice enough guy. Totally incompetent. Losses to Japan forced him to accept the establishment of a Duma for fear of reprisals from the Empire's population. After establishing the Duma, tried to take all power from the Duma. Made a total disaster of the Great War, and was forced to abdicate during the February Revolution.

The Revolution was inevitable. As I've said before, the tragedy is that it didn't do any good, not that it occurred.

 

[Milla]

On the subject of what farmers owned before the Revolution:

Serfs in Imperial Russia

Traditionally, the term for a peasant of the epoch of feudalism in Imperial Russia, krepostnoi krestyanin (крепостной крестьянин, is translated as serf. However, a Russian landowner eventually had gained an unlimited ownership over Russian serfs, including the right to sell and even to assign marriages, so in fact they had eventually become slaves, tied to the land by harsh policies tied to imperial rule.

The roots of serfdom in Russia are traced to Ivan IV of Russia, who introduced the first laws that restricted the mobility of peasants. The serfs were emancipated during Alexander II's reign.

Similar relationships: See Indentured Servant and Slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serf#Serfs_in_Imperial_Russia

Your 135 acre figure does not take into account those serfs who were the property of those acres' owners, nor does it average them into the landowning figure after they were emanicpated in 1861. And what do you think happened to them after they were emancipated, Albion?

Incidentally, serfs comprised fully ONE THIRD of the population of Russia in the 1800s. Think - just THINK - on that for a moment!

To reiterate: I am not saying that the USSR was in any way a utopia. What I am saying is that to look back on the Empire as a "better time" is patently ridiculous.

 

[Albion]

On the subject of what farmers owned before the Revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serf#Serfs_in_Imperial_Russia

Your 135 acre figure does not take into account those serfs who were the property of those acres' owners, nor does it average them into the landowning figure after they were emanicpated in 1861. And what do you think happened to them after they were emancipated, Albion?

Incidentally, serfs comprised fully ONE THIRD of the population of Russia in the 1800s. Think - just THINK - on that for a moment!

To reiterate: I am not saying that the USSR was in any way a utopia. What I am saying is that to look back on the Empire as a "better time" is patently ridiculous.

Actually, it WAS a better time, just not good. Even if 1/3 of the population were serfs, what were they under Lenin and Stalin? Worse than that. Anyway, we've each said our peace, and I think we should stop here.

 

[Milla]

Actually, it WAS a better time, just not good. Even if 1/3 of the population were serfs, what were they under Lenin and Stalin? Worse than that. Anyway, we've each said our peace, and I think we should stop here.

No. Because, simply put, I'm right. Given the choice between being a SLAVE (that's what Russian serfs were, since the time of Ivan Grozniy) and living under the danger of being exectuted or sent to the gulag for "treason," I think I'll still choose the danger. Maybe you would choose slave. Fine for you. But don't claim that slavery is better than general oppression.

And this is silly - you want to pick out Lenin and Stalin as the only two Soviet leaders, which is of course not the case. It would be as ridiculous as choosing only Peter the Great and Ivan Grozniy to represent all Tsars.

How many people do you know that actually lived in the Soviet Union? For heaven's sake, my babushka grew up under Stalin. Were people afraid frequently? Yes. Were they living in misery, with every aspect of their lives controlled, the way the West wants to portray it? Most of the time, no. Even at the height of Stalin's terror, life went on. And Stalin's terror is not representative of all time of the USSR.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry to say that you have been sold a false history, but let's look at the cold hard facts. The comparison here is supposed to between the Russia that ended with the Revolution and the Russia that began with the Revolution...not between the Russia that had ALREADY PASSED AWAY and the Communist era.

I was trying not to have to burst your bubble, but THERE WERE NO SERFS IN RUSSIA IN 1917. They were liberated in 1861 as you know well.

There never were more than 10,000 prisoners in Siberia during the Czars' days, but hundreds of millions during the Soviet era! Lenin's wife complained that the maid service wasn't so good when they were there in the late 1800s.

Monarchs are not, by definition, totalitarians, but you are right that Communist rulers are.

Stalin was possibly the greatest mass murderer in history with the number of his victims amounting to possibly 50,000,000.

Contrary to your claim that it was only some religions that were suppressed under the Soviets, all were...unless you consider Atheism a religion. It had its own "Five Year Plan for Atheism."

The list goes on.

 

[Milla]

I'm sorry to say that you have been sold a false history, but let's look at the cold hard facts. The comparison here is supposed to between the Russia that ended with the Revolution and the Russia that began with the Revolution...not between the Russia that had ALREADY PASSED AWAY and the Communist era.

I was trying not to have to burst your bubble, but THERE WERE NO SERFS IN RUSSIA IN 1917. They were liberated in 1861 as you know well.

Yeah, I was the one that told you that, so I do know that they were emancipated in 1861. Emancipated is a bit different from liberated. What, pray tell, were they doing during that fifty-six year period from 1861 to the Revolution? Here's a hint: not living happy rollicking lives down on the farm, nor climbing their way by dint of their own hard work through the ranks of society. Go read a book or two on the subject.

There never were more than 10,000 prisoners in Siberia during the Czars' days, but hundreds of millions during the Soviet era! Lenin's wife complained that the maid service wasn't so good when they were there in the late 1800s.

Source on your numbers? Hundreds of millions in Siberian gulags? There were less than 300 million people in all the USSR! You're just making things up. 2.5 million is the figure commonly cited for the PEAK of the gulag population in the early 1950s.

You don't have to make up information to show that the gulag system was bad. Everyone knows it was terrible. I'm not saying it wasn't terrible. To be in many of the gulag camps was to be sentenced to death.

But most people weren't in the gulag camps. What I am considering here is that life for most people in the Empire was not better than life for most people in the USSR. People were oppressed before and after the Revolution. People starved to death before and after the Revolution. People were treated as chattel before and after the Revolution. The old boss is the same as the new boss.

Monarchs are not, by definition, totalitarians, but you are right that Communist rulers are.

Where did I say that they were?

And the USSR wasn't communist, as any look in a history book will tell you. It never claimed to be communist, even. They were what they called "building communism." You weaken your argument by making false and irrelevant claims, you know.

Stalin was possibly the greatest mass murderer in history with the number of his victims amounting to possibly 50,000,000.

Good heavens. Stalin was wicked enough without having to exaggerate him.

It is generally agreed by historians that if famines, prison and labour camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, Stalin and his colleagues were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926-39 census results suggests 5-10 million deaths in excess of what would be normal in the period, mostly through famine in 1931-34. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million while the 1939 census at 162 million. (Another census from 1937 is known as the "wrecker's census"; its figures were suppressed.) The highest death estimates are 50 million from the 1920s to 1950s, but they are probably greatly exaggerated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Death_toll

Contrary to your claim that it was only some religions that were suppressed under the Soviets, all were...unless you consider Atheism a religion. It had its own "Five Year Plan for Atheism."

Where did I claim that? I know they were supressed. Of course, there is a difference between supression and outlawing, which you failed to make.

To reiterate for the Nth time: I've no fond thoughts of the USSR. But the USSR being bad does not make the Empire an improvement. The USSR came into being because of the viciousness and incompetence of the Empire. The USSR is the child of the Empire.

You're trying to compare the worst part of life in the USSR, a specific period of Stalin's rule, to an amalgam of the best parts of the Tsarist empire, which simply does not work except as propaganda.

 

[Albion]

Yeah, I was the one that told you that, so I do know that they were emancipated in 1861. Emancipated is a bit different from liberated. What, pray tell, were they doing during that fifty-six year period from 1861 to the Revolution? Here's a hint: not living happy rollicking lives down on the farm, nor climbing their way by dint of their own hard work through the ranks of society. Go read a book or two on the subject.

Source on your numbers? Hundreds of millions in Siberian gulags? There were less than 300 million people in all the USSR! You're just making things up. 2.5 million is the figure commonly cited for the PEAK of the gulag population in the early 1950s.

You don't have to make up information to show that the gulag system was bad. Everyone knows it was terrible. I'm not saying it wasn't terrible. To be in many of the gulag camps was to be sentenced to death.

But most people weren't in the gulag camps. What I am considering here is that life for most people in the Empire was not better than life for most people in the USSR. People were oppressed before and after the Revolution. People starved to death before and after the Revolution. People were treated as chattel before and after the Revolution. The old boss is the same as the new boss.

Where did I say that they were?

And the USSR wasn't communist, as any look in a history book will tell you. It never claimed to be communist, even. They were what they called "building communism." You weaken your argument by making false and irrelevant claims, you know.

Good heavens. Stalin was wicked enough without having to exaggerate him.

Where did I claim that? I know they were supressed. Of course, there is a difference between supression and outlawing, which you failed to make.

To reiterate for the Nth time: I've no fond thoughts of the USSR. But the USSR being bad does not make the Empire an improvement. The USSR came into being because of the viciousness and incompetence of the Empire. The USSR is the child of the Empire.

You're trying to compare the worst part of life in the USSR, a specific period of Stalin's rule, to an amalgam of the best parts of the Tsarist empire, which simply does not work except as propaganda.

"And the USSR wasn't communist, as any look in a history book will tell you. It never claimed to be communist, even. They were what they called "building communism." You weaken your argument by making false and irrelevant claims, you know."
Oh, right. And enslaving and murdering the populace was "building" the Worker's Paradise, all the Bourgeoisie Capitalist, Imperialist Hegemonists and their running dogs' facts not withstanding. Your history seems to have stopped with the reading of Das Kapital, but at least we weren't discussing German history or you'd be telling us how Hitler was a pretty good guy by comparison to Dracula since Adolf gave people jobs and liked animals.

Have a nice day.

 

[Milla]

"And the USSR wasn't communist, as any look in a history book will tell you. It never claimed to be communist, even. They were what they called "building communism." You weaken your argument by making false and irrelevant claims, you know."
Oh, right. And enslaving and murdering the populace was "building" the Worker's Paradise, all the Bourgeoisie Capitalist, Imperialist Hegemonists and their running dogs' facts not withstanding. Your history seems to have stopped with the reading of Das Kapital, but at least we weren't discussing German history or you'd be telling us how Hitler was a pretty good guy by comparison to Dracula since Adolf gave people jobs and liked animals.

Have a nice day.

Sarcasm doesn't behoove you. Moreover, you're making no sense. Where did I claim that the USSR was having actual success or even following a logical path toward creating a viable communist state? Where did I say that Stalin was a decent guy? Nowhere. If you want to revise history to make it fit better with your moral worldview, have fun with that, but the fact is that life before the Revolution sucked. Period. It sucked afterward too. It is a fact that many of your "facts" are wildly inaccurate (or can you find a source to defend your "hundreds of millions" claim? Or a source telling of the utopian lives of the "liberated" serfs for those 56 years of "freedom"?). It is also afact that the USSR never claimed to be an actual communist nation, that the capitalism/democracy vs. evil communism dichotomy was a Western construct, and one that has now been embraced by many RF leaders. Again, I encourage you to read some actual primary sources to get a non-revisionist view of the time period.

Hysterical denouncements of the evil of the USSR does nothing to help us understand how and why it came about, and how such travesties can be avoided in the future.

 

[Albion]

Sarcasm doesn't behoove you. Moreover, you're making no sense. Where did I claim that the USSR was having actual success or even following a logical path toward creating a viable communist state? Where did I say that Stalin was a decent guy? Nowhere. If you want to revise history to make it fit better with your moral worldview, have fun with that, but the fact is that life before the Revolution sucked. Period. It sucked afterward too. It is a fact that many of your "facts" are wildly inaccurate (or can you find a source to defend your "hundreds of millions" claim? Or a source telling of the utopian lives of the "liberated" serfs for those 56 years of "freedom"?). It is also afact that the USSR never claimed to be an actual communist nation, that the capitalism/democracy vs. evil communism dichotomy was a Western construct, and one that has now been embraced by many RF leaders. Again, I encourage you to read some actual primary sources to get a non-revisionist view of the time period.

Hysterical denouncements of the evil of the USSR does nothing to help us understand how and why it came about, and how such travesties can be avoided in the future.

and I encourage you not to confuse the real history of the era with the theories of Karl Marx. Let's drop this.

 

[Milla]

and I encourage you not to confuse the real history of the era with the theories of Karl Marx.

That doesn't make any sense either. How am I confusing the real history with Marxist theory? I'm familiar with both Marxist theory and how Marxist-Leninist theory warped Marxist ideas (and the fact that Lenin and other revolutionaries were fully aware that they were doing so), and also with how the USSR failed to implement either Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Are you?

Let's drop this.

Drop it if you want. No one's forcing you to post. I shall continue to correct inaccuracies where I see them.

 

[Lifesaver]

You need to read up on your Russian history, Lifesaver. What do you think life was like for the people before the Revolution? It was no better. The events that occurred after the October Revolution were merely "the old boss is the same as the new boss." I cannot, for the life of me, see any problem with deposing the corrupt, petty, ineffective, uneducated, idiot tsars and nobles from power and replacing them with a government of the people. Unfortunately, that "government of the people" was filled by people of the same calibre as the tsars they had replaced. The tragedy here is not that the Revolution occurred, but that it did not change anything.

People had the right to have a religion before then.
The period of the revolution was one ripe with hatred, when the poor peasants, controlled by their socialist leader's rabid ideologies, killed and raped many people.

It also destroyed a great part of Russian culture, just like the French Revolution destroyed French culture and the Chinese revolution did the same for China.

Religious people were persecuted (as in every single socialist experience ever in history: France, Spain, Mexico, China, etc). I'm not one to be on the side of Eastern churches not in union with Rome, but in this case the resistence of many clergymen of theirs against the murdering armies of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin was truly inspiring.

I have no doubt that Russian nobility must have been completely corrupted, just like it was the case with French nobility before their revolution, and that the conditions of peasants was not a good one.
But that does not justify popular revolt. It is a great sin to participate in subversive revolutionary activity in all cases except the very extreme ones, like probably (and I may be wrong even here) was the case in Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR.

The "government of the people", even if it were of the people, was an atheistic socialist murdering machine. And those are three very grave sins.
And your claim that what replaced the tsar was more or less the same thing is just false; the levels of institutionalized violence were comparable only to those of Nazism in Germany, making the socialistic crimes in Mexico and Spain seem little in comparison.

Surely, as you yourself say, life continued as usual, as it always does under any condition, no matter how harsh it is.

If there is one thing which the last centuries have taught us is that there is nothing more dangerous than the hate and strength of the masses driven by populist anti-Catholic ideologies.

The only thing worse than the objectives dreamt by delirious socialists is the actual result of their actions.

 

[SolomonVII]

People had the right to have a religion before then.
The period of the revolution was one ripe with hatred, when the poor peasants, controlled by their socialist leader's rabid ideologies, killed and raped many people.

It also destroyed a great part of Russian culture, just like the French Revolution destroyed French culture and the Chinese revolution did the same for China.

Religious people were persecuted (as in every single socialist experience ever in history: France, Spain, Mexico, China, etc). I'm not one to be on the side of Eastern churches not in union with Rome, but in this case the resistence of many clergymen of theirs against the murdering armies of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin was truly inspiring.

I have no doubt that Russian nobility must have been completely corrupted, just like it was the case with French nobility before their revolution, and that the conditions of peasants was not a good one.
But that does not justify popular revolt. It is a great sin to participate in subversive revolutionary activity in all cases except the very extreme ones, like probably (and I may be wrong even here) was the case in Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR.

The "government of the people", even if it were of the people, was an atheistic socialist murdering machine. And those are three very grave sins.
And your claim that what replaced the tsar was more or less the same thing is just false; the levels of institutionalized violence were comparable only to those of Nazism in Germany, making the socialistic crimes in Mexico and Spain seem little in comparison.

Surely, as you yourself say, life continued as usual, as it always does under any condition, no matter how harsh it is.

If there is one thing which the last centuries have taught us is that there is nothing more dangerous than the hate and strength of the masses driven by populist anti-Catholic ideologies.

The only thing worse than the objectives dreamt by delirious socialists is the actual result of their actions.

That societies, and the upper stata in societies become corrupt, is certainly true. The liberal response since the time of the French revolution has been as often as not to opt for a violent revolution against those in society who are preceived as more fortunate. Even today, true to Marxist utopianism, many liberals believe that violent upheavals are justified and a good thing.
However, the results have not borne out this optimism. Not only do post-revolutionary societies still have to deal woith the same injustices and problems that they have had before, but they now have to deal with these problems with great portions of the culture and belief system that have taken centuries to build fractured and destroyed.
A comparison of the legendary work ethic of the Germans, and how it has been seriously compromised by just a few generations of socialism in East Germany may serve as a good example of this.

 

[Milla]

Even today, true to Marxist utopianism, many liberals believe that violent upheavals are justified and a good thing.

Good gravy. This board makes my brain hurt. Please do look at a diagram of the political spectrum sometime; Marxist liberals would be liable to believe in the coming of the revolution; a Marxist radical would believe as you say.

People had the right to have a religion before then.

You've hit upon an inadvertent truth: a religion. Russian Orthodoxy. Others were barely tolerated at the best of times and were generally actively supressed; the relationship of state atheism to the peoples of the USSR is a analogical situation, as it well should be: it grew out of and by the model the old Orthodox hegmony.

The period of the revolution was one ripe with hatred, when the poor peasants, controlled by their socialist leader's rabid ideologies, killed and raped many people.

This sounds very dramatic, but it is largely unfounded; the primary foot soldiers of the Revolution were the city working class, led by the intelligentsia. The peasants were generally uninvolved.

It also destroyed a great part of Russian culture, just like the French Revolution destroyed French culture and the Chinese revolution did the same for China.

I'm curious: what part of Russian culture was destroyed? I'm pretty certain it still exists, not so very different than how it was before the Revolutions; we have lost the words for "Sir" and "Madam" and developed an uncanny love of acronyms, but beyond that...Have you travelled much in the former USSR?

Religious people were persecuted (as in every single socialist experience ever in history: France, Spain, Mexico, China, etc). I'm not one to be on the side of Eastern churches not in union with Rome, but in this case the resistence of many clergymen of theirs against the murdering armies of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin was truly inspiring.

Again with the "good gravy." The Orthodox church became a puppet of the Soviet state within a few years. Yes, there were some bold clergymen, but it rapidly became a tool for the Soviet government as it had been for the Tsars; just recently there was a great scandal as yet more KGB agents were uncovered among the priests...ordined, serving priests, working as KGB agents, had been for decades...

I have no doubt that Russian nobility must have been completely corrupted, just like it was the case with French nobility before their revolution, and that the conditions of peasants was not a good one.
But that does not justify popular revolt. It is a great sin to participate in subversive revolutionary activity in all cases except the very extreme ones, like probably (and I may be wrong even here) was the case in Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR.

So it's okay to lead a revolution against Stalin, but not a leader who is killing the country through incompetence instead of cruelty? Seems inconsistent to me; people were doomed under both Stalin and Nicholas II, one through his propensity for state-sponsored terrorism, and the other through his total inability to handle the finances and wars of the nation. Hmm. Would it have been acceptable for the people to have a revolution against Nikolas I, or Peter the Great, or Ivan the Terrible? All of these were horridly oppressive in their own ways, while wearing the mantle of Christianity, which seems to be the main difference between them and Stalin or Lenin... Perhaps you could clarify under exactly WHAT circumstances in your belief system it is acceptable to overthrow the government?

The "government of the people", even if it were of the people, was an atheistic socialist murdering machine.

It wasn't a government of the people, as I have said approximately one million times. It was structures almost the same at it had been under Tsarist rule, except that now atheistic Marxist-Lenininsts were running things instead of Orthodox Royalists.

And those are three very grave sins.

Being a socialist is a sin? So the early Christian communes, they were inherently sinful organizations?

And your claim that what replaced the tsar was more or less the same thing is just false; the levels of institutionalized violence were comparable only to those of Nazism in Germany, making the socialistic crimes in Mexico and Spain seem little in comparison.

A fine statement, with no facts to back it up. Which time period of the USSR are we looking at, here? There is a world of difference between the USSR of Krushchyov and that of Stalin, for example...this is the inherent problem with the system of the Russian Empire/USSR, and the reason I say they were the same at heart; one man rules, and all tone and action is set by him; there is no rule of law. If he is a good man, perhaps life may be acceptable, but if he is a bad man...there is no end to the suffering. It is nigh impossible to make blanket statements about the USSR, just as it is to make them about the Empire; one of the few constant truths of life in these territories was that peasants starved to death a lot.

Surely, as you yourself say, life continued as usual, as it always does under any condition, no matter how harsh it is.

The post of many on this board would make it out that every day in the USSR all went to bed afraid and woeful; this is simply not the case, which is why I pointed out that the old cliche "life goes on" applies here.

If there is one thing which the last centuries have taught us is that there is nothing more dangerous than the hate and strength of the masses driven by populist anti-Catholic ideologies.

I'm curious what on God's green Earth this has to do with Catholicism; anti-Catholicism has nothing to do with the Russian Revolutions, for the simple reason that Catholicism played little to no role in Russian Empire life, other than for very small minority groups like the Volga Germans and a subset of the population of Samara...Catholicism was supressed under Russian Empire rule, Soviet rule and is being suppressed now under Russian Federation rule. Uniformly miserable throughout. So how are you bringing anti-Catholicism into this?

The only thing worse than the objectives dreamt by delirious socialists is the actual result of their actions.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

To reiterate once more: I'm not nostalgic nor a supporter of the USSR. But when I see people saying things that are patently historically erroneous, I really have to say something. History should be manipulated to fuel ideology, be that the ideology of royalists, socialists or democratic republicans.

As I've said before, life in the USSR was difficult enough without making stuff up to add to the story.