Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MaievSekashi t1_j29nmgu wrote

Reply to comment by cgaWolf in This day, 100 years ago, the USSR was created by SENPA-A-A-A-I-I

There are many things one can criticise about the USSR, but "Worse than the Czar" isn't one of them.

46

pegothejerk t1_j29rztl wrote

It was worse for the Czar

55

United_Target8942 t1_j2d41zq wrote

I don't think so, living standards increased a lot. For most people, its better than living in a colonial extraction based economy where there is poverty for 80% of the population, (on top of a tyrannical dictator).

0

TomSurman t1_j2a2fae wrote

I know a lot about the atrocities of the USSR, I don't really know what happened under the Czar. I was under the impression that the Czar was just an out-of-touch distant autocrat, not really interested in the affairs of the Russian people. Whereas the USSR took a keen interest in what the ordinary people were up to, and it wasn't to the peoples' benefit.

8

MaievSekashi t1_j2a3s4q wrote

A lot of massacres, starvation, and routine repression of the people under his rule. It is difficult to point out a specific one; While for comparison the Holodomor is often pointed out with the USSR, similar famines (and many smaller ones) happened on a regular basis under the Czar, to the point they were simply part of the normal patchwork of society rather than significant events - Despite certain famous famines in the USSR's history, it's average level of food security was significantly greater than under the Russian Empire. The Russian famine of 1891-1892 in particular was a major driver in the popularity of Marxism in Russia. The spark that lit the fire of the February revolution was a protest-turned-riot against food rationing. This was also against the background of Russia's involvement in WW1 being deeply unpopular and killing a lot of people.

He was an out of touch distant autocrat and one could debate his personal role in all this, but his government very much cared what people did; for the people dying it didn't particularly matter whether it was personally the Czar's fault or his government's fault, as the government's strongly autocratic nature directly stemmed from him regardless of his intentions. Personally as a Jewish person I think he about got what deserved - I don't have much sympathy for a man who happily condoned pogroms against us. What happened to the rest of his family should not have happened.

This was a state that still had serfdom and enforced it very violently. Secret police and mass imprisonment of political opponents was the norm; the later GULAG program effectively built off the precedent of imprisoning people for questionable political crimes as a source of forced labour.

To put it simply, people did not revolt for no reason and establish the conditions that allowed for the Bolsheviks to come to power. They did it because ordinary life was impossible under the Czar's regime.

46

Hunor_Deak t1_j2b1ryp wrote

And to add, the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05.

He was told that going to war against Japan was a bad idea as Russia wasn't ready. He couldn't deliver economic progress so he wanted to be a military leader. The war was serving as a distraction to the problems in Russia. Only for them to lose the war.

The failed revolution of 1905 was partially because of Russian loss to Japan.

16

tcmart14 t1_j2btzfp wrote

Yea, large famines were the norm and happened often. Eastern Europe and Russia were some of the last to industrialized. I believe Marx himself even called Russia a backwater and the last place communism could happen in because they were so far behind in industrializing. And Russia didn’t get properly industrialized until it had to out of war time necessity from World War 2.

As for personal involvement in daily lives. The czar was, you can say the USSR learned a lot of tricks from the Czar when it came to the Cheka and the KGB. Lenin being an example was jailed and sent to Siberia for a time due to his political writing and the Imperial police very much had spies walking amongst the people. So in a way, the Chela and KGB for the Soviet Union was not out of the ordinary, it was business as usual since a lot of these type of government activities predate the USSR.

Unfortunately, people seem to think Russian history only started in 1917 when in reality it’s been a shit show for hundred of years prior.

11

MeatsimPD t1_j2a4a6j wrote

Oh the Tsar was very concerned with what the peasants were up to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana

In the decades leading up to the overthrow of the Monarchy in 1927, there were a lot of assassination attempts on the Tsars and high ranking officials, plus numerous attempts to overthrow them. They were very much aware and interested in who was supporting or influenced by these revolutionary movements

30

9lobaldude t1_j2d8zy2 wrote

The Czar was limited to Russia, the Soviet empire killed and destroyed everywhere from Eastern Europe to North Korea

−1

MaievSekashi t1_j2efrdi wrote

You clearly have not heard of the Russian EMPIRE. Who do you think it was that colonised Russia as far as North Korea and invaded Manchuria?

Seriously, you don't understand what you're talking about if you think the Czar solely ruled what is now modern-day Russia.

2

9lobaldude t1_j2f08ah wrote

I never said that it was limited to modern day Russia.

The Russian empire never ruled over North Korea or all of Eastern Europe. If in doubt, you can google it.

1

United_Target8942 t1_j2ft5j8 wrote

North Korea was supported by the USSR to a large extent though. It was a richer country than south korea up until the 1970's. The really bad times in North Korea happened during the war (from american bombing) and after the collapse of the USSR, which resulted in a famine (the arduous march).

0

9lobaldude t1_j2fwo7f wrote

And look how the DPRK people have doing doing during the last 20 years

2

gmil3548 t1_j2ahy9k wrote

Stalin was definitely worse than the Czar. There can be a hypothetical asked about if Stalin hadn’t gone to power how would it have been (but still Lenin and the others were pretty cut throat about holding power instead of letting Mensheviks or SRs gain influence). However, given how Stalins regime played out and how the inertia of it kept going with the next few guys, it can be objectively said that’s he czars weren’t nearly as bad. Out of touch conservatives who occasionally got too violent we’re the czars while Stalin was just a straight up mass murderer.

−3

Cicero912 t1_j2ayiqn wrote

The tsars were 100% mass murderers aswell, they weren't like Louis the 16th and just bad monarchs during a tumultuous time but otherwise decent people.

The Okhrana is one of the scariest secret police organizations in human history.

16