Not_mikey
@Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on "Gen Z won't understand this but back in my day, if you ever saw as many ads as you do on social media today, it meant you had at least 3 viruses on your computer" 1 day ago:
Ads on social media must suck. Glad we’re all here on lemmy where we get inundated with communist propaganda instead of consumerist propaganda.
- Comment on Zebra!! 1 day ago:
Wow, I have a very distinct line on my arm where my skin gets lighter, always wondered why but now I know
- Comment on Entombed 6 days ago:
Yes, especially once agriculture comes into play and people become sedentary they burn through a lot more wood then will naturally grow if not controlled by rules and laws
If you’ve ever had a bonfire imagine how much wood you went through, then imagine having to keep that fire going, at least at a smolder, all day long to heat your home and cook your food.
- Comment on Entombed 6 days ago:
They actually weren’t and that’s also probably why we aren’t heading towards an ice age. Due to solar cycles the earth should’ve started cooling about 7,000 years ago but it didn’t and instead we entered the warmer holocene, perhaps due to mass deforestation and early agriculture releasing tons of CO2 and methane:
- Comment on Entombed 6 days ago:
Probably not incidental, if the population was sedentary they would probably burn through the trees faster then they would naturally grow back.
Humans, especially in northern latitudes, burn through wood pretty quickly for cooking and warmth.
- Comment on Entombed 6 days ago:
Eh, it’s not as if the romans were too kind to the forests. So if you’re going back in time kill Caesar too before he genocides gaul of the protectors of the forest the Celts
- Comment on No room for romance when there's rising and grinding to be had! 1 week ago:
You really aren’t on that grindset if you have time to fuck your wife. True leadership is about delegating these sort of tasks so you can free up your full potential.
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 1 week ago:
that’s clearly been programmed into your brain. Has very little to do with reality.
I’m an American , none of this has been programmed into my brain, if anything I got programmed to think the soviets are bad through my education. I’m just reading Wikipedia.
Meanwhile you started this off with a propaganda meme with false numbers. You seem to be projecting because if anything your programmed through your schooling and national mythology that hypes up the winter war.
You don’t seem to want to accept that finland was more urbanized for some reason even though you’ve given no sources and I’ve given two which you don’t want to address.
Just because st Petersburg exists doesn’t mean the rest of Russia is just as urbanized. China has tons of cities with more then 10 million but it’s still less urbanized then say belgium which has no cities bigger then 10 million. They’re on different scales, just like Finland and russia
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 1 week ago:
you have zero sources
I just gave you two sources, they say that in 1914 Russia was 2% industrial workers while Finland was 12%. Are you denying these numbers or that 12 is greater then 2?
Yes Finland was an agrarian society but Russia was moreso, again the source says Finland was 66% agrarian while Russia was 80% . 80 is greater then 66, idk how to spell this out clearer.
So either give me some sources for different numbers on industrial workers, or explain to me how 2 is greater then 12 and 66 is greater then 80
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 1 week ago:
I never said forestry was an urban industry, I said milling was, just like mining coal and iron aren’t urban but they’re indictive of the urban industry of steel production.
I’m also not saying that Finland is a dense country, just that its population was more concentrated then Russia at 1917.
The point I’m trying to make is that Russia on the eve of the revolution was less urbanized and industrialized then Finland. By the 1960s they had caught up, as you have shown, and I am saying that it was communism that allowed them to catch up.
On the eve of the revolution / independence 66% of Finns were working in agriculture/forestry while 12% were working in industry while in 1914 Russia was 80% agriculture and 2% industrial
Then, as you’ve shown, by the war Russia had caught up to Finland. I am saying this is because of communism and Stalin’s five year plans.
As for the goals, prior to the war the soviets demanded:
- A border shift on the Karelian Isthmus, pushing it back from Leningrad (the USSR wanted roughly 25-30 km more buffer)
- A lease on Hanko (a peninsula) for a naval base
- Several islands in the Gulf of Finland
- Parts of the Rybachi Peninsula in the Arctic north
- In exchange, the USSR offered Finland a larger but less valuable swath of territory in Karelia further north
Finland refused, the Soviets invaded and in the peace treaty the soviets got:
- The entire Karelian Isthmus, including Viipuri (Finland’s second-largest city)
- Significant additional territory around Lake Ladoga
- Parts of the Salla region and Rybachi Peninsula
- A lease on Hanko (not just the original ask, but now as a full military base)
So they achieved there original goals and then some. They didn’t conquer finland, but it’s debatable whether that was a goal in the first place.
My comparison to korea wasn’t about scale or dividing the country, it was about setting an initial goal, getting ambitious and trying to go for it all, then pulling back and still achieving the initial goal.
Not saying a planned economy is always the right path to development, by the 1960s the soviets had stalled out due to lack of innovation. I’m saying that it can lead to rapid development when catching up, as innovation isn’t required so much as organizing to copy existing systems. In the 1930s the Soviet union did that and developed the country faster then even capitalism could’ve done.
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 1 week ago:
Please do elaborate. Yeah we lost Karjala and the NE arm.
Yeah those were the soviets demands prior to the war. They got even more territory then they were demanding in fact. This is more like the Korean war, the US went in with the goal of protecting the south, then they got cocky and thought they could take the whole peninsula and got pushed back by China until they got to the modern border. They achieved there initial war aims but didn’t get there maximalist aims.
So what do you base this “Finland was much more industrialised” bit?
At the time of the revolution finland was more urbanized then the rest of Russia, the population was more concentrated in Helsinki, like you said involved in paper milling. In order to industrialize you need to get the peasants into the cities to work in factories. To do that you need an efficient agricultural system that can produce the same amount of food with less man power.
Prior to the revolution finlands agricultural production was on similar levels to other Nordic countries with land being consolidated under more efficient middling farmers, which freed up agricultural laborers to go work in the cities.
The rest of Russia was still operating mostly on pseudo-serfdom with a bunch of rich landlords ,who didn’t have the knowledge to increase efficiency, driving dirt poor peasants, who didn’t have the incentive to increase efficiency as it would all go to the landlord anyway. Because of this Russia had the most backward, inefficient agricultural sector in all of Europe. This meant they needed more peasents working the land instead of moving to the city and working in factories
This changed when Stalin forced the collectivization of the land and the adoption of modern agricultural practices and forced peasents to move to the cities. While this did increase agricultural efficiency, it didn’t do so by enough to compensate for all the new people in the cities eating food instead of out in the country making food and caused a massive famine.
This had a huge cost in lives but it did give results as russias industrial capacity increased massively, as shown by there ability to churn out tanks so easily during the war.
This wouldn’t have happened under capitalism or market socialism as it took the very heavy hand of the state to do all of this. If it were capitalism the peasents wouldn’t have been pushed to the cities as quickly, and there probably also wouldn’t have been a famine.
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 1 week ago:
Finland was much more industrialized, urbanized and developed then the rest of Russia prior to 1917. It was barely even part of Russia as it was mostly autonomous with its own parliament. So it’s not as good of a comparison.
Russia didn’t win the war solely through manpower. They had just as much of a man power advantage in WWI and still lost because they’re industry was shit. Without Stalin’s obsession with increasing steel and war production, heavily mechanized battles like the battle of kursk would’ve been lost.
IDK if that meme is outdated or fabricated but the current wiki page shows way less casualties on the Soviet side and more even strength in man power. Even then it shows the lopsided Soviet industrial capacity with how many tanks and planes they had. They were wasted on a war in terrain that would’ve been difficult without snow, and even more so with.
Yeah the soviets weren’t able to fully conquer finland but they did get a lot of there demands and a good chunk of territory. If the war had dragged out longer and the snow thawed then finland probably wouldn’t have been able to hold them off for much longer in conventional war, though a guerilla campaign would probably be effective.
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 2 weeks ago:
By your definition the billionaires and the politicians they back would be unsuccessful political actors as they’re making the quality of life worse for most people. I’d say they are very successful political actors, and that is the problem.
In my opinion politics is “war without bloodshed”. It is a means by which a group can accomplish certain goals that another group opposes.
One side could have a goal of improving the quality of life for the poor while the other could have a goal of improving it for the rich. Politics is what both sides do to try and accomplish there goals.
Political theory is like military theory in the sense that it lays out strategies to defeat the opposition and accomplish those goals. While a military theory is proven correct by winning a battle, a political theory can be proven correct by winning an election.
Politics is a means, not an end. The end/goal is determined by ideology , class position, self interest etc.
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 2 weeks ago:
My comment was in reply to another one saying something along the lines of “Russia poor because communism”. So it was more about how communism can lead to development.
Either way though I would say its development was largely because of communism. The czarist regime faced similar pressures and didn’t develop like Russia did in the 30s
An even better comparison would be Poland which faced an even greater existential threat from its neighbors and didn’t industrialize as quickly. For example Poland built about 150 of there tp7 tanks in the interwar period while the Soviet union had around 25,000 tanks built before the war. Even accounting for the Soviet unions 5-6x population that’s still a lot more production capacity per capita.
The Soviet industrialization during the interwar period was unprecedented and relied on a command economy to force the peasants off the land and into the cities, at the cost of a famine that killed millions.
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 2 weeks ago:
Russia did though, before the revolution Russia was still mostly agrarian and way less developed then western europe. Under communism they developed faster then any other country up to that point and nearly caught up to the west.
People often compare the soviets to western europe and say they’re poor, but Russia was half a century behind the west before the revolution, and the revolution/ civil war caused even more destruction. A better comparison would be a country like Mexico which also was mostly agrarian and just finished a revolution in 1920. Compared to that the Soviet union did pretty well living standards wise.
Just look at there war performance , WWI Russia lost to Germany whose main focus was on the western front, WWII Russia was able to halt Germanies full force after they had conquered France and drive them back.
- Comment on Anon judges Karl 2 weeks ago:
Why would you say he’s a bad political theorist? If we measure the success of a political theory by its ability to take, hold and exercise power Marxism is one of the most successful political ideologies in the world.
Or are you doubting it’s accuracy more then its success?
- Comment on *Honk honk* 3 weeks ago:
Right now*
We’ve almost caused, and now will forever have the capacity to cause, a mass extinction event with nuclear bombs. If the cold war had turned hot we probably wouldn’t be saying how good we have it in the industrial age compared to the agrarian age.
There’s also the more slow motion extinction event in the form of climate change.
But yes for those living in the west from 1950 ~ 2150 it’s a good deal
- Comment on You need to think long term 3 weeks ago:
Micheal, pretty sure I’ve given a few dyslexic people a real hard time when I put that in the email field and the correct spelling in the first name field.
- Comment on Anon makes a multiplayer game 3 weeks ago:
You’re gonna force me to play an asian character? The woke oppression of us gamers never stops.
- Comment on You need to think long term 3 weeks ago:
My mom made my first email on KOL(AOL for kids) and misspelled my name. To this day my gmail has that misspelling in it.
- Submitted 4 weeks ago to [deleted] | 0 comments
- Comment on I will... 4 weeks ago:
NFC
Accepted as a method of payment nearly everywhere these days?
- Comment on no chances for life around red dwarfs 5 weeks ago:
More powerful flares would be relevant though, I don’t think earths atmosphere could survive a flare 10,000 times more powerful then what the sun puts out
- Comment on 🌈 🏳️🌈 🌈 🏳️🌈 🌈 🏳️🌈 5 weeks ago:
Anyone know why it’s “backwards”?, idk what the convention is for geology but I’m use to timelines going from left/oldest to right/newest
- Comment on Self sacrifice is honorable 1 month ago:
In that industry…
Software as a career is dying anyway and the welding union I’m going to apprentice won’t understand, much less care about any of this
- Comment on Oh that is BRUTAL 1 month ago:
This is me whenever I broil something. Oh you started putting away the dishes for 1 minute, enjoy your charcoal.
- Comment on Pfft 1 month ago:
The Japanese always claim they’re doing “research” when they go whale hunting
- Comment on PAWG P-A-W-G 1 month ago:
Helen of sparta confirmed thicc af
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
A college education is increasingly becoming the political dividing line in the US so the right is trying to degrade trust in the university and education in general.
- Comment on This is a shitpost 1 month ago:
Social security insolvency is a myth perpetuated by the rich. Social security is sustainable if we just raise the cap so income over ~200k gets taxed as well. The rich want to make it seem like this isn’t an option and that social security going bankrupt is inevitable and the people just need to accept that and move on.
Don’t accept the myth, only accept what your owed.
