Sir Arthur Harris: Dutiful Soldier or War Criminal?

[rupol2000]

It was Brezhnev who was a complete alcoholic. He even forgot how to read, and could not clearly pronounce a speech.

 

[ESay]

Ilf and Petrov were Stalin's fosterlings. What does Khrushchev have to do with it? Khrushchev was in the United States and did not hide anything, his photographs were published in the Soviet press. Khrushchev was the leader of the right deviation, he hated Bolshevism.

To answer your question, you need to re-read previous posts. It doesn't mean what Khrushchev hated or not, or how his visit was interpretated in the SU.

The point was Khrushchev's surprise when he saw all those household appliances in the home of a common American. It was similar to Ilf and Petrov's surprise when they saw similar appliances in an American engineer's home (as prototypes) more than 20 years before that.

Yes, the Soviet Union was able to put a man on the orbit, but it failed to provide common things to the ordinary people.

 

[rupol2000]

All periods of power of the KGB / NKVD were with alcoholic leaders. These are Stalin, Brezhnev and Yeltsin.
All of them were virtually completely degraded alcoholics. This was done in order to rule the country from behind the scenes.
In the 30s, all actual power was in the hands of the kaganovich group. Stalin was inadequate, at night he arranged drinking bouts, drank all night long, and in the evenings watched artists, ballet and movies, and even went to the podium with a bottle. In addition he had a problems with psichic health. There is no any possibility that he was even aware of politics, he simply used to sign the papers that were slipped.

 

[rupol2000]

Yes, the Soviet Union was able to put a man on the orbit, but it failed to provide common things to the ordinary people.

As for the time of Khrushchev, you must take into account that at that time there was no light in the villages, they did not have passports, and the majority of the population lived in barracks. There were food problems. After the war, there was still famine, and many breadwinners did not return from the war. Then there was no time for luxury. But the citizens had already moved into separate apartments and ate enough.
And by the end of the thaw era, the country already looked like a civilized one, with arts and entertainment, industry, recreation parks, high-rise buildings and well-established production. People dressing up in decent suits and so on.

 

[rupol2000]

America invested a lot of money and equipment in the war, but there was no such devastation as in the USSR, and there were no 27 million dead on the fronts and in the rear.
In addition, before the war, nothing was done for people either. Industrialization was reduced to the military industry, nothing was invested in improving everyday life.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... to quote this, "Americans have a high standard of living" is proof enough that you know very little about the world.

This is clear even from American cars with five-liter engines.

Clear that you know very little about the world? Yes.

 

[rupol2000]

Clear that you know very little about the world? Yes.

You don't know anything. Even in Europe there are no such cars and never have been. The Americans did not stop producing such a cars even after the oil crisis, they only limited the power.
If you post a lamborghini or a sports porsche to me now, I will call you an idiot and will not answer any more.

 

[ESay]

As for the time of Khrushchev, you must take into account that at that time there was no light in the villages, they did not have passports, and the majority of the population lived in barracks. There were food problems. After the war, there was still famine, and many breadwinners did not return from the war. Then there was no time for luxury. But the citizens had already moved into separate apartments and ate enough.
And by the end of the thaw era, the country already looked like a civilized one, with arts and entertainment, industry, recreation parks, high-rise buildings and well-established production. People dressing up in decent suits and so on.

Yeah, slightly more than 20 years after that the SU collapsed under its weight. Quite efficient economic model, without a doubt.

 

[rupol2000]

Yeah, slightly more than 20 years after that the SU collapsed under its weight. Quite efficient economic model, without a doubt.

Firstly, I did not say that this was an effective model, secondly, after Khrushchev, there was a deliberate destruction of the economy, in the third, the Khrushchev economic model was decentralized and more similar to "capitalism", and in general the economic model does not solve almost anything, everything depends on politics. These idiots talk about economic models, when a bunch of export appendages work for them, supplying them with free goods and raw materials.

In America, too, there is no private ownership of the means of production, property is distributed in public ownership and controlled through controlling stakes, nominally it is public, and its monopolization would mean complete economic socialism. Private property belongs only to farmers and small business owners, it is 1% of the economy.
And in the US there is no free market either, everything is regulated by finance and trade policy.

 

[rupol2000]

Moreover, the USSR also never had a fully planned economy after the war. The planned economy should take into account and distribute, among other things, the labor fund, and in the USSR there were market mechanisms for attracting labor force. And in general there was a lot of things that were marketable, all these are empty words.

 

[rupol2000]

They only followed the private recruitment of labor. Craft production was not prohibited
For example, you can open your own sewing workshop, but you cannot hire seamstresses there. Such was the policy approximately.

 

[rupol2000]

In general, by and large, the well-being of the people depends not on the model of the economy, but on how much they are robbed.

 

[rupol2000]

And if we talk about efficiency only in terms of labor productivity, the slave communist model will win, this is obvious, because it squeezes out the maximum labor force with minimum maintenance costs

 

[ESay]

Firstly, I did not say that this was an effective model, secondly, after Khrushchev, there was a deliberate destruction of the economy, in the third, the Khrushchev economic model was decentralized and more similar to "capitalism", and in general the economic model does not solve almost anything, everything depends on politics. These idiots talk about economic models, when a bunch of export appendages work for them, supplying them with free goods and raw materials.

In America, too, there is no private ownership of the means of production, property is distributed in public ownership and controlled through controlling stakes, nominally it is public, and its monopolization would mean complete economic socialism. Private property belongs only to farmers and small business owners, it is 1% of the economy.
And in the US there is no free market either, everything is regulated by finance and trade policy.

There wasn't deliberate destruction of the economy. That is nonsense. Quite ineffective economic model couoled with mismanagement and corruption. All that led to a natural final.

In America there isn't private ownership of the means of production? What a nonsense. You are a Russian, right?

 

[rupol2000]

There wasn't deliberate destruction of the economy. That is nonsense. Quite ineffective economic model couoled with mismanagement and corruption. All that led to a natural final.

In America there isn't private ownership of the means of production? What a nonsense.

I think that you do not understand economics at a sufficient level to understand basic concepts such as ownership of the means of production, and the structure of modern joint-stock companies, where there is no private property (with the exception of ownership of securities)
These concepts, which you use, were created specifically for the masses, they have nothing to do with how economies actually work.

 

[rupol2000]

In fact, private property is not a right, but a left idea: it is the path to communism. If instead of property there was manegement, the work of the economy would not change, but property includes the right of alienation, and this is a direct path to monopolization. Monopolization is actually communism.

 

[rupol2000]

If we consider the Proudhonian view of socialism, then there is property without the right of alienation. In theory, this is the path to real protection from monopoly and communism, because if there is no alienation, then there is no possibility of taking property from the owner by any means. But in this case, he will be tied to the place of his property.

 

[rupol2000]

These questions are complex and probably not solvable. Under any system, the well-being of the people and their life will depend on what kind of power. Under Khrushchev, there was a monopoly of the state, but at the same time there was de-centralization and broad powers of local units. Ministries have lost control over the economy. It was a more market-based system, and it was quite effective compared to the centralized model. Here, the key role was apparently played by the fact that more responsibility and initiative were assigned to local authorities.

 

[rupol2000]

For example, if you protect the owner from raider and fraudulent seizures of his property and control by the state and large players, as Proudhon wanted, then who will then organize their integration into the general economy of the state, systematize the economy for the current goals of the people? Ownership independence is also not a good idea.

 

[Mushroom]

Was there a separate Russia at that time?

I am talking about the pre-Soviet era, obviously.