What about Gully's actual posting is bad? Who cares about a categorization error with regard to the census of a country he's not from that happened 10 years ago!?
In any case, I am unsure why you prefer Bekarus still be a swamp.
It has nothing to do with that, but the rather sage stuff he wrote about the US and the Democratic Party, and the Greens and Ralph Nader.
Are you, a conservative, actually defending communism?
I acknowledge that Stalinist crash industrialization resulted in massive amounts of unnecessary casualties and did not perform up to expectations. In light of that, it is indeed sad that the only way that certain remote sections of the globe only eventually saw some stunted form of modernity through the Soviet system. I regard it less an ideology than an alternative means to modern development that, in some cases, was able to thwart market and geographic mechanisms for the slight betterment of some groups of people that otherwise might not have experienced such.
I also find this problem strangely unaddressed in conversations about the merits or weaknesses of communism. As such, I trolling my enjoy inserting it into otherwise primitive threads.
But what is the benefit of said industrialization if it is not geared towards the betterment of its people. Soviet Crash Industrialization overwhelmingly focuses on building up heavy industry. Of what use is 10,000 tons of steel or cement, if it is only going to be used to build another steel or cement factory.
Russia was industrializing at a rapid pace prior to World War I, and this was set back by the war, Revolution and Civil War. Not saying it would have matched Soviet era industrialization, but it is inaccurate to imply that only Stalin would and could have industrialized Russia or any other place.
The area that is Belgium was an economic backwater for centuries while the Netherlands was a leading trading empire. Yet, Belgium benefited from the Industrial Revolution more so than the Netherlands. Scotland, Japan, and numerous other areas that were backwaters either kicked off or benefited from industrialization.
Foreign Investment helped create powerful industrial economics in South Korea and Taiwan. And while you may be thinking, "this would only have happened because of the nearby communist countries, remember, foreign investment was driving Russian industrialization, before Communism had come to power in a single state, while Stalin was robbing banks and extorting oil companies for protection to keep Bolshevik coffers full.
Don't get me wrong, I am the wrong person to be defending neoliberalism or its dogma. I just don't think "Stalin built the railroads" is in anyway going to slice justifying a second look at communism for said reason, anymore than "Mussolini made the trains run on time" would for fascism.
Poll
