Russian Imperial Library era find

[Robert_Hall]

You know I am going to chime in, Tim.  Not every Communist leader was a  Romanian  toilet job or a Tito, who had  "villas" all over the former Yugoslavia, inhereted by Milosevic AFTER the fall of communism.

 Captalists like  Marcos lived like  wanna be  Hollywood stars and  African dictators raked in billions in foreign aid to  buy palaces in France.
 Same with South American "republics" Their were a lot more hypocritical capitalist   thieves than there were communists.

[TimM]

Not every Communist leader was a  Romanian  toilet job or a Tito, who had  "villas" all over the former Yugoslavia

Todor Zhivkov, of Bulgaria, owned over thirty homes.  Erich Honecker of East Germany (the guy who oversaw the construction of the Berlin Wall) had a mansion in an enclave near Berlin, and so did his cronies.  A lot of these guys lived the very lifestyle they said they were against.  Plunk them down in Beverly Hills, they would have been right at home.

inhereted by Milosevic AFTER the fall of communism

This guy lasted as long as he did by being ultra savvy.  When he saw that Communism was on the way out, he revinvented himself as an ultra nationalist, with bloody results.  That is why he stayed in power until he was ousted in 2000.

Captalists like  Marcos lived like  wanna be  Hollywood stars and  African dictators raked in billions in foreign aid to  buy palaces in France.
 Same with South American "republics" Their were a lot more hypocritical capitalist   thieves than there were communists

Yes, but these guys never pretended to live in a system they themselves clearly did not follow.

[Robert_Hall]

Zhivkov did not own those homes, Tim. They were properties of the state, mainly former royal estates from Ferdinand's era. Claimed by Simeon when he returned to Bulgaria and he refused to pay back taxes [or ANY taxes, for that matter]. Both were simply crooks.
 Pretty much the same in East Germany- property that was confiscated  from  former Nazis who had confiscated by them  from former Prussian  nobility and Jews.
 Ever been to Acapulco, Mexico ?  There is an exclusive, guarded  section of town, overlooking the  ocean  full of  huge mansions. Known as the  "Enclave of former Presidents". This was the private reserve  for former dictators from Latin America and Africa. The homes are magnificent, construction and staff are cheap. I spent a holiday there at the home of a rich American friend, Lovely,  but surrounded by slums on the outside. That is where the workers come from.A dictator's Dinseyland, so to say.
 Ao sympathy intended but Iran has spent time and money reclaiming the Pahlavi  exported fortune. Same with the Philippines and the Marcos loot.

[Petr]

Zhivkov did not own those homes, Tim. They were properties of the state, mainly former royal estates from Ferdinand's era. .....
 Pretty much the same in East Germany- property that was confiscated  from  former Nazis who had confiscated by them  from former Prussian  nobility and Jews.

Robert, I miss the distinction. Stalin's Dacha was also owned by the State. They were all crooks who mouthed fine sentiments ..."to each according to their needs" ...except their "needs" seemed greater than everyone else's.  The dachas, the special stores, the special medical treatment, etc.  Orwell's Animal Farm pretty much described the situation to a tee.

[Robert_Hall]

And capitalist looters were any different ?  Duvalier had estates in France for instance.

[Tsarfan]

Robert, I miss the distinction.

I, too, miss the distinction, but in a broader sense . . . for what is the point of this argument?  The soviet-era bosses set themselves up as a privileged class, treating the assets of the state and the nation as their own.  The Romanovs did the same.  Mikhail Romanov was elected by the boyars in 1613 to become their tsar, a political position.  They did not relinquish ownership of their lands to him.  But by 1910, Nicholas II claimed to be the "owner of the Russian land".  Exactly what was the basis for this expropriation?  Catherine II seized a throne by a coup and cut off the rights of her son to succeed directly to the throne.  What was this if not an outright confiscation, made superficially legal only by the exercise of raw power?

Different actors.  Same play.

The suggestion that the Romanovs were somehow more noble or justified in their exercise of raw confiscatory power than the communists is a monarchist fantasy.

Russian tsarism was a fascinating political and social institution, worthy of a lifetime of study.  But it did not exist on some elevated plane of moral superiority, floating mystically above other self-serving and cynical human enterprises.  

Why is it these days that every time an interesting discussion of the hard facts of Russian life, society, and industry gets underway on this forum, it is soon sidetracked into some argument that the Romanovs were something special as human beings?  There was a time when real history could be discussed here on a sustained basis.  It's a damned shame.

[TimM]

Yes, but the big difference is that for decades the Communists of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe said they were above all that, that their way was the best way, everyone was equal, blah-de-blah blah.  Of course, it was all bull****.  These guys said captalists were evil, they stole from the poor, and yet the Communists DID THE EXACT SAME THING.  They lived like a bunch of rich fat cats while the people of their countries were lucky to get a decent meal and worked in conditions that tended to drastically shorten life expectancies. 

Karl Marx made one fatal error when he unleashed his ideas on the world, he failed to take human nature into account, so it was easy for the likes of Stalin to take Marx's flawed ideas and exploit them to his own gain.

[Tsarfan]

Yes, but the big difference is that for decades the Communists of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe said they were above all that, that their way was the best way, everyone was equal, blah-de-blah blah.

And how, exactly, does that differ from the Romanovs' claims that they were there solely for the good of the Russian people, that autocracy was the heavenly-ordained and only viable form of government for the people entrusted by God to their loving royal care?

Communist or monarchical . . . it's all a bunch of propagandistic, self-serving hokum.  Studying Romanov history through the lens of such adulation yields no better results than we saw from two generations of soviet scholars who interpreted their nation's history through the lens of pseudo-Marxist Leninism.

They lived like a bunch of rich fat cats while the people of their countries were lucky to get a decent meal and worked in conditions that tended to drastically shorten life expectancies.

If that's not a description of the senior nobility of tsarist Russia, then I really don't know what is.

[Louis_Charles]

Exactly. It is easy to excuse the excesses of the Romanov state by pointing to the fact that they (the Tsars) were giving lip service to Christianity, but in fact that was generally all they gave it. Minorities were persecuted, and the teachings of Christ perverted to keep men in a static social position in hope that their lot would improve in the next life if they did their duty in this life in the station to which God had "called" them. What is the difference between a small group of men profiting through this kind of exploitation, and a small group of men giving lip service to the "ideals" of someone like Karl Marx? The fact is that there has never been a successful, long-term monarchy  that exercised real powerthat did not serve itself and its own interests ahead of whatever country was unfortunate enough to be ruled by it. Individual monarchs, even individual Romanov monarchs, might have put their country's best interest ahead of their own, but Nicholas II certainly wasn't one of them.

Also, I am a little late to the Kent State discussion (and don't really get how it wound up on this thread), but if I may:  I was a friend of one of the four students who was shot. He was killed several hundred yards away from the commotion, as were others of the dead. All of that training didn't make the Ohio National Guard good shots. And there were other options to "draft dodging", a truly reprehensible term --- unless you are equally willing to apply it to people like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and virtually every other national politician who was of age during the Vietnam war and avoided service there. There was protest, which is what the students at Kent State were engaged in. More importantly, they were not alone. There seems to be an implication that the opposition to the war was headed by a bunch of "entitled" college kids. Come off it. That wasn't true at the time --- there was a broad coalition of people from all socio-economic classes that was opposed to the war. For every Jerry Rubin, there was a Dr. Benjamin Spock. For every SDS cell, there was the Southern Christian Leadership group. It is easy to simplify history, but you do it a severe disservice when you do.

[Petr]

And capitalist looters were any different ?  Duvalier had estates in France for instance.

Nope, capitalist looters are no better but they don't seem to justify themselves that they are acting in the peoples' best interests for them it's simlpy greed.

[Robert_Hall]

Excellent points, Tsarfan and Louis Charles and I do not disagree.
 As for the distinction, well, state property could not be sold or inherited. There was no private property in  Soviet Russia. It was given and taken away at the will of the leadership.
 Another difference was that Soviet elite lived low profile lives.  Knowing just that, their privileges and benefit were the the blessings of power and could vanish in an instant, especially under Stalin.
  Capitalist lived open and ostentatious line, rubbing it in, so to speak.
 And just who can quote to me where the Communists said any of these propagandist things about "benefiting the people "?
 They did provide health care, education, education, transportation an social welfare, especially for older people.
 No Romanov regime came close to that.
  Sadly it has gone belly up without funding now,  but is slowing being reapaired.
 Here,in the US Obama care is being called "socialist": What is wrong with that ?  Most of Western  Europe is socialist.  Folks in  the UK are outrahed that some are trying to  take away NHS services. And education subsidies.
 Has has been noted more clearly than I could do,  another distinction was that the Romanovs treated the people as private property.  Whereas the Soviets treated them as equals in ownership of their own lives

[Petr]

Robert, I miss the distinction.

I, too, miss the distinction, but in a broader sense . . . for what is the point of this argument?  The soviet-era bosses set themselves up as a privileged class, treating the assets of the state and the nation as their own.  The Romanovs did the same.  Mikhail Romanov was elected by the boyars in 1613 to become their tsar, a political position.  They did not relinquish ownership of their lands to him.  But by 1910, Nicholas II claimed to be the "owner of the Russian land".  Exactly what was the basis for this expropriation?  Catherine II seized a throne by a coup and cut off the rights of her son to succeed directly to the throne.  What was this if not an outright confiscation, made superficially legal only by the exercise of raw power?

Different actors.  Same play.

The suggestion that the Romanovs were somehow more noble or justified in their exercise of raw confiscatory power than the communists is a monarchist fantasy.

Russian tsarism was a fascinating political and social institution, worthy of a lifetime of study.  But it did not exist on some elevated plane of moral superiority, floating mystically above other self-serving and cynical human enterprises.  

Why is it these days that every time an interesting discussion of the hard facts of Russian life, society, and industry gets underway on this forum, it is soon sidetracked into some argument that the Romanovs were something special as human beings?  There was a time when real history could be discussed here on a sustained basis.  It's a damned shame.

[Tsarfan]

Nope, capitalist looters are no better but they don't seem to justify themselves that they are acting in the peoples' best interests for them it's simlpy greed.

Nicholas II owned and maintained the largest palaces in Europe, many which he seldom entered.  He had 17,000 people on his household staff.  He had several yachts, one the most opulent in the world.  His extended family members were granted large stipends from state coffers upon birth and were vested in huge trust funds.

That same Nicholas II rescinded much of the worker protection legislation of his father's reign.  He significantly reduced the corps of inspectors who were supposed to inspect factories for compliance with the paltry state regulations.  He quite deliberately courted foreign capital with promises of cheap labor with no rights to organize for their own benefit or protection.  In his private correspondence he justified the pogroms that swept across Russia from 1903-1906 and left hundreds of his subjects dead and thousands of them destitute and dispossessed.  He covered up his uncle's malfeasance in the Khodynka Field disaster, flourishing highly-publicized promises of payments to the surviving families who were left without breadwinners, and then failed to make those payments once the world's attention moved on to other issues.

Really, Petr.  Can you tell me what makes this man any more attractive as a human being than the people you vilify?

[TimM]

Here,in the US Obama care is being called "socialist": What is wrong with that ?  Most of Western  Europe is socialist.  Folks in  the UK are outrahed that some are trying to  take away NHS services. And education subsidies.

Socialism and Communism are two different things.  Socialists believe in democracy, they can be voted out.  Communists cannot.

However, many right wing groups tend to lump them both together.  You start talking about Obama care to these people, and they think that means carving the faces of Lenin and Stalin on Mount Rushmore.

[Robert_Hall]

You are not far from wrong, Tim.  But communism  is an ideal to be achieved, it rarely was though. The communal farms were generally a failure as an example.
 
 Also,  Communists could be voted out.  In a one party state,  the person would simply be replaced with another Party member though. The political structure was often rigged  but did operate as a pyramid. One level electing the next.