Way to Russia Talk Lounge

michigan10&2 · Just Starting Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 1

I'm trying to answer the following question and I'm hoping someone with a better sense of Russian history can help point me in the right direction:

How did the revolutionary movements in 19th century Russia have its roots in the changes in Russian society in the 18th century?

I'm thinking Westernization under Peter the Great and the development of the intelligentsia but any help would be greatly appreciated!!

-Tracey-

36_CKOTUHOK · Frequent Guest Joined: 13 Jun 2004 Posts: 29

Revolution happened because of liberalization in economy in 1903-1905. I suggest you to read book "Why Russia is not USA" written by Parhomov. You can find it here: thewalls.ru.

markhagelin · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:45 am Post subject:

The ideas of Karl Marx pre-date him going back to the Bavarian Illuminati [around 1776 or so, relatively the same time as the American Revoultion].

From there they went to the League of the Just and then to the Communist League and Communist Manifesto.

America did feel the influence of the early socialists, but not to an extreme, the so-called Progressive movement in the United States. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the National Labor Relations Act/Board came about as a result.

Everyone of the 10 points for implementation of communism has occured within the US. If not controlled directly by the state/government they are controlled by the New World Order through the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bildebergers, Skull & Bones and a number of secret societies through the use of interlocking directories [membership on mulit-corporations et al at the same time.

Believe or not America has become more Communist in the past 30 then when the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917 et al.

Mark Hagelin

deskware7 · Frequent Guest Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 67

pumakin · Just Starting Joined: 30 Nov 2004 Posts: 6

Markhegelin,
Are you sure it's communism they're after? It seems to me that communism originally was really nothing more than the idea of workers owning their work and controlling the profits. Not a radical idea from the standpoint of the average person. After all, how many people would object to friends and family members, or a larger community of like-minded individuals, going into business together? Humans have always lived in communites (from whence the term "communism") and have always worked together and shared in various ways. This is the natural order of things and it precedes Marxist ideology by hundreds of thousands of years. Humans have also clashed and fought with each, it is true, and certainly the basis for another discussion. I would say here only that such clashing/friction, while certainly an agent for change and innovation, ultimately represents a loss of energy and so any strategy to reduce that loss (sharing, cooperation) becomes the more adaptive and beneficial one.
By contrast, the New World Order seems to be nothing more than neo-feudalism in fascist garb. What is capitalism, with its fiat-money based indentured servitude and titled claim to the fruits of other's labor (stocks and bonds) than a system of industrialized manors? We have been deceived into thinking that the conflict is between the individual and the collective, but really it's a conflict between energy governence systems, centralized and extractive vs. decentralized and synergistic. Imagine trying to buy a house or land, or start a business, but you don't have enough money, so what do you do? Do you take out a loan from a bank, which charges interest and so lays claim to a portion of your time/life/energy beyond the original amount of the loan? Or do you save the entire amount and spend years of your life sacrificing and hoping that the money will still be worth something when you finally accumulate enough? Or do you hook up with others and pool your resources? Each option requires a sacrifice but which one requires the least energy output? The last one, of course, but that's collectivism, right? Is it really antithetical to the individual? Try it on a somewhat larger scale and create your own currency, and see what happens. I guarantee that your "collectivism" will not go unnoticed or unpunished by the "marxist" NWO.

wavetossed · WayToRussified Joined: 27 Jun 2004 Posts: 337

I think that the creation of a small Russian-born French-speaking intelligentsia in the 18th century led to the revolutions of the 19th century because this small group of educated individuals inevitably came to believe that they had the solutions to the problems of Russian society. It was a combination of the small number of people, the easy exchange of ideas through the shared Russian-French culture, and the obvious problems of Russian society surrounding them.

Dr Fauste · Site Admin Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 654

If you happen to notice that countries that kept feudalism the longest had the bloodiest revolution or wars. Last two countries to form in Europe were Germany and Italy. Russia was the last country to dispose Feudalism. If you look at the spending habits of the Tsars versus the Royality in England, you can easily undrestand why they had a revolution. There is a great debate whether Lenin was eventually moving Russia in a Socialist State like Sweden and Norway or keep the dictatorship.

I think Marx derive commnism from Dialect Materialism from Immanuel Kant(drunken piss ant who is very rarely stable). Communism is political form of a commune which many religion cults use each which everyone works for each other. Amish are a commune (I think). If think of communism in this manner, it is live and well. This is from my memory so correct me if I am wrong.