Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[scrdest]

Can you give us one example of an egregious injustice which does not strengthen Russia's Putin's position? Oppressive regimes thrive on injustice.

Killing people instead of sending them into "workcamps", for example. Germans were quite foolish when they did that; well their entire ideology was self-defeating, so it's no wonder they did that.

*coughstalinspurgescough*

[XXSockXX]

Can you give us one example of an egregious injustice which does not strengthen Russia's Putin's position? Oppressive regimes thrive on injustice.

Killing people instead of sending them into "workcamps", for example. Germans were quite foolish when they did that; well their entire ideology was self-defeating, so it's no wonder they did that.

*coughstalinspurgescough*

This.
Also the whole comparison is off, German concentration camps were labour camps too.

[Sergarr]

Er... how is that worse than killing them outright? Soviet labour camps were never about killing people -- the inmates just "happened" to have extremely high mortality rates.

You get less production out of it, and you need production to arm your culture with everything it needs to continue increasing the production.

In the end, it's all about achieving the maximum efficiency of labor by any means possible. The Germans failed to understood that "racial purity" does not make tanks faster. Stalin didn't. That's why when Hitler died he left a war-torn country in ruins, to be divided across the winners, and when Stalin died, he left a country that has conquered the lesser half of Europe and was one of the only two superpowers in the world.

Considering that Stalin started from a country torn by 4+ year long civil war and without any significant industrialization, while Hitler started from a country that was already industrialized and which territory was never really invaded in decades, Stalin showed a much better understanding of mechanisms of history that Hitler.

[Sinistar]

The whole point of concentration camps though was eventual extermination, them being labor camps were just temporal thing or in some case labor due to force of events thing. To my knowledge.

And speaking completely from economical point, it is probably more useful to employ slave labor than mass execute them but, uh, this Hitler talk is becoming a bit silly now. Over and out.

Also, ninjad.

[SirQuiamus]

Er... how is that worse than killing them outright? Soviet labour camps were never about killing people -- the inmates just "happened" to have extremely high mortality rates.

You get less production out of it, and you need production to arm your culture with everything it needs to continue increasing the production.

In the end, it's all about achieving the maximum efficiency of labor by any means possible. The Germans failed to understood that "racial purity" does not make tanks faster. Stalin didn't. That's why when Hitler died he left a war-torn country in ruins, to be divided across the winners, and when Stalin died, he left a country that has conquered the lesser half of Europe and was one of the only two superpowers in the world.

Considering that Stalin started from a country torn by 4+ year long civil war and without any significant industrialization, while Hitler started from a country that was already industrialized and which territory was never really invaded in decades, Stalin showed a much better understanding of mechanisms of history that Hitler.

Rampant corruption does not increase efficiency of labour. Putin is pro-corruption and anti-efficiency. _{(I'm just about done arguing with you...)}

[XXSockXX]

Er... how is that worse than killing them outright? Soviet labour camps were never about killing people -- the inmates just "happened" to have extremely high mortality rates.

You get less production out of it, and you need production to arm your culture with everything it needs to continue increasing the production.

In the end, it's all about achieving the maximum efficiency of labor by any means possible. The Germans failed to understood that "racial purity" does not make tanks faster. Stalin didn't. That's why when Hitler died he left a war-torn country in ruins, to be divided across the winners, and when Stalin died, he left a country that has conquered the lesser half of Europe and was one of the only two superpowers in the world.

Considering that Stalin started from a country torn by 4+ year long civil war and without any significant industrialization, while Hitler started from a country that was already industrialized and which territory was never really invaded in decades, Stalin showed a much better understanding of mechanisms of history that Hitler.

So...yay Stalin for...being the more efficient inhuman bastard? 

Returning Crimea back is one of those things that strengthen Russia's position.

Do you really believe that? Because currently it looks like Russia was in a much better position before annexing Crimea.

[nenjin]

Er... how is that worse than killing them outright? Soviet labour camps were never about killing people -- the inmates just "happened" to have extremely high mortality rates.

You get less production out of it, and you need production to arm your culture with everything it needs to continue increasing the production.

In the end, it's all about achieving the maximum efficiency of labor by any means possible. The Germans failed to understood that "racial purity" does not make tanks faster. Stalin didn't. That's why when Hitler died he left a war-torn country in ruins, to be divided across the winners, and when Stalin died, he left a country that has conquered the lesser half of Europe and was one of the only two superpowers in the world.

Considering that Stalin started from a country torn by 4+ year long civil war and without any significant industrialization, while Hitler started from a country that was already industrialized and which territory was never really invaded in decades, Stalin showed a much better understanding of mechanisms of history that Hitler.

So...yay Stalin for...being the more efficient inhuman bastard? 

Returning Crimea back is one of those things that strengthen Russia's position.

Do you really believe that? Because currently it looks like Russia was in a much better position before annexing Crimea.

I'm guessing that has more to do with sanctions than as a direct result of annexing Crimea.

[Antsan]

I think I need to learn a new mantra: Both sides of the conflict are stupid. Both sides of the conflict are stupid. Both sides…
I hate being wrong. Why the hell haven't I learned that already?

[XXSockXX]

I'm guessing that has more to do with sanctions than as a direct result of annexing Crimea.

Of course (though arguably Crimea would be a bit of an economic drain anyway), but I don't see how pissing off their neighbours strenghtens Russia's position.

[SirQuiamus]

I think I need to learn a new mantra: Both sides of the conflict are stupid. Both sides of the conflict are stupid. Both sides…
I hate being wrong. Why the hell haven't I learned that already?

Arguing with a brick wall is absolutely stupid, to be sure. (I need another drink...)

[Sergarr]

Er... how is that worse than killing them outright? Soviet labour camps were never about killing people -- the inmates just "happened" to have extremely high mortality rates.

You get less production out of it, and you need production to arm your culture with everything it needs to continue increasing the production.

In the end, it's all about achieving the maximum efficiency of labor by any means possible. The Germans failed to understood that "racial purity" does not make tanks faster. Stalin didn't. That's why when Hitler died he left a war-torn country in ruins, to be divided across the winners, and when Stalin died, he left a country that has conquered the lesser half of Europe and was one of the only two superpowers in the world.

Considering that Stalin started from a country torn by 4+ year long civil war and without any significant industrialization, while Hitler started from a country that was already industrialized and which territory was never really invaded in decades, Stalin showed a much better understanding of mechanisms of history that Hitler.

Rampant corruption does not increase efficiency of labour. Putin is pro-corruption and anti-efficiency. _{(I'm just about done arguing with you...)}

Putin is anti-efficiency? I guess that explains why Russian military under Putin was very inefficient, being able to defeat Chechnya, Georgia... oh wait.

Putin is not anti-efficiency. Yeltzin was anti-efficiency, and the entire nation loathes him for that.

And corruption doesn't matter as long as efficiency is maintained. I would want to remove it, too, but first we need to develop a good model of Russian society that would be practically useful. Then we'll be able to see what we have to do to deal with corruption.

I'm guessing that has more to do with sanctions than as a direct result of annexing Crimea.

Of course (though arguably Crimea would be a bit of an economic drain anyway), but I don't see how pissing off their neighbours strenghtens Russia's position.

Strengthen Russia, not Russia's position.

[XXSockXX]

Strengthen Russia, not Russia's position.

That's the same thing. If your neighbours think of you as "unpredictable scary potential invader" instead of "reliable rich trading partner", you're not stronger at all. Look at the damage the last Iraq war did to the US, that will be part of how people see them for decades.

[scrdest]

Er... how is that worse than killing them outright? Soviet labour camps were never about killing people -- the inmates just "happened" to have extremely high mortality rates.

You get less production out of it, and you need production to arm your culture with everything it needs to continue increasing the production.

In the end, it's all about achieving the maximum efficiency of labor by any means possible. The Germans failed to understood that "racial purity" does not make tanks faster. Stalin didn't. That's why when Hitler died he left a war-torn country in ruins, to be divided across the winners, and when Stalin died, he left a country that has conquered the lesser half of Europe and was one of the only two superpowers in the world.

Considering that Stalin started from a country torn by 4+ year long civil war and without any significant industrialization, while Hitler started from a country that was already industrialized and which territory was never really invaded in decades, Stalin showed a much better understanding of mechanisms of history that Hitler.

Rampant corruption does not increase efficiency of labour. Putin is pro-corruption and anti-efficiency. _{(I'm just about done arguing with you...)}

Putin is anti-efficiency? I guess that explains why Russian military under Putin was very inefficient, being able to defeat Chechnya, Georgia... oh wait.

Putin is not anti-efficiency. Yeltzin was anti-efficiency, and the entire nation loathes him for that.

And corruption doesn't matter as long as efficiency is maintained. I would want to remove it, too, but first we need to develop a good model of Russian society that would be practically useful. Then we'll be able to see what we have to do to deal with corruption.

Military power is an extremely poor indicator of economic efficiency. Just ask, well, the USSR. Or, for that matter, since you brought it up already, Nazi Germany. Both incredible military powers, both struggled economically (if corrected for their own and their own alone productivity; Nazi economy heavily depended on looting ferex) and were hilariously inefficient quite often.

Efficiency cannot be maintained if corruption is in place; corruption is implicitly inefficient, that's pretty much the point - instead of most efficient solutions, those that serve the powerful men's self-interest is favored, and anyone outside the current power structure who tries to beat the efficiency of someone in them usually dies in a lead poisoning accident, or has his enterprise shut down due to bureaucratic complaints, or something else.

Furthermore, corruption tends to entrench itself and spread, hampering efforts to eradicate it and dragging down the efficiency in more and more minuscule cogs of the system.

[Sergarr]

Strengthen Russia, not Russia's position.

That's the same thing. If your neighbours think of you as "unpredictable scary potential invader" instead of "reliable rich trading partner", you're not stronger at all. Look at the damage the last Iraq war did to the US, that will be part of how people see them for decades.

You've picked a bad example. USA is a #1 most powerful (both economically and militarily) country in the world that does whatever it wants. They can invade however many countries they want and people will still trade with them, through them and by using their money. This won't change unless it becomes weak, which is why USA's military spending is bigger that of all other countries combined.

Military power is an extremely poor indicator of economic efficiency. Just ask, well, the USSR. Or, for that matter, since you brought it up already, Nazi Germany. Both incredible military powers, both struggled economically (if corrected for their own and their own alone productivity; Nazi economy heavily depended on looting ferex) and were hilariously inefficient quite often.

Efficiency cannot be maintained if corruption is in place; corruption is implicitly inefficient, that's pretty much the point - instead of most efficient solutions, those that serve the powerful men's self-interest is favored, and anyone outside the current power structure who tries to beat the efficiency of someone in them usually dies in a lead poisoning accident, or has his enterprise shut down due to bureaucratic complaints, or something else.

Furthermore, corruption tends to entrench itself and spread, hampering efforts to eradicate it and dragging down the efficiency in more and more minuscule cogs of the system.

Soviet Union was "inefficient" in a sense that it didn't focus all its efforts into "consuming" sector of economy, but into "military" one. Considering how widespread Soviet arms are in the world, I'd say the did a very effective job there. The lack of total efficiency can be most likely attributed to the lack of any useful model of Soviet society; Marxism wasn't a good one, and there wasn't much effort put into evolving it further.

I personally blame Khrushchev for not doing that and shutting down the education on "Logic" in the school (yes, late-period Stalin have issued Logic as a thing to be teached to all young people, because he knew that educated population is more efficient).

Like I said, corruption cannot be dealt with unless we have an objective definitive model of Russian society. Without it, any attempts at dealing with it are not only pointless, but can be actively harmful to Russia.

[nenjin]

I suppose if other countries have a habit of telling Russia no, regardless of what their economic prosperity does or doesn't look like, cooperation through intimidation rather than promising business relationships starts to look more appealing. Especially if the scary one is in the position to dictate terms to their partners.