Which communist revolution? Russia was having famines before the soviet revolution. Its more reasonable to say communism solved the famines in russia and created them in china.
The Soviet Famine of the collectivization, which you inappropriately label “Holodomor” (scary word for a specific famine to make it sound like holocaust, I wonder if you have any other special scary words for other famines) is indeed an unfortunate event of Soviet History. Yet, you fail to see it in the bigger picture.
First of all, even during the famine, life expectancy remained higher than in Tsarist times, because of increasing access to healthcare and nutrition on average to peasants.
Secondly, the famine is an unfortunate consequence of the necessity of rapid collectivization and industrialization because of threat of external invasion. There was intense debate in the CPSU at the time regarding rapid collectivization and industrialization vs. progressive one, and ultimately rapid industrialization won because of the perceived threat of invasion by industrialized western powers with 100 years of industrialization behind their backs. Famously, in 1931, Stalin said in a speech that the USSR was 100 years behind and would have to make up for that difference in 10 years or they would be eliminated. Almost exactly 10 years later, Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
By industrializing rapidly (15% yearly growth of GDP) thanks to rapid collectivization of agriculture, not only did the Soviet Union defeat Nazism and save every European nationality between Germany and the Urals from Nazi genocide (hence saving tens of millions of lives), but this rapid development managed to raise life expectancy from below 30 years old in 1929 to above 60 bu 1960, effectively saving tens of millions of lives more. By any demographic metric you use, compared to what came before (Tsarism) and what came after (capitalism), the USSR saved tens of millions of lives. Capitalism is the one that brought unemployment, hunger, drug abuse, violent crime, and a reduction of life expectancy after decades of progress.
inappropriately label “Holodomor” (scary word for a specific famine to make it sound like holocaust, I wonder if you have any other special scary words for other famines)
edit: Also, the Holodomor specifically refers to the famine within Ukraine which killed millions, while the “Soviet Famine of the collectivization” (a specific name I can find referenced nowhere else, is that a translation?) is (evidently) the broad famine impacting the USSR of which the Holodomor was a part.
The word was used in print in the 1930s in Ukrainian diaspora publications in Czechoslovakia as Haladamor
And why exactly did that term stick in the west, only transliterated as Holodomor instead? And why is it overwhelmingly discussed with this term since the 2000s? Maybe because the usage of the word is political in nature as I explained?
And why exactly did that term stick in the west, only transliterated as Holodomor instead?
Because that’s the name it was given by the Ukranian peoples that survived it? I’m not sure what your point is here when you agree that it’s a transliteration of the name.
ngram graph
It’s not exactly a disputed fact that things like the Holodomor didn’t gain much traction in western literature until after the fall of the soviet union, because that’s when western literature was able to access it.
Discussion of the Holodomor became possible as part of the Soviet glasnost (“openness”) policy in the 1980s. In Ukraine, the first official use of the word “famine” was in a December 1987 speech by Volodymyr Shcherbytskyi
Add to it that the soviets violently suppressed reporting on it within the USSR, which you can even see reflected in that graph, explains the lack of occurrence in non-western works. That seems, you know, pretty gosh dang basic.
You’re seriously arguing the pretty straightforward etymology of this word is some kind of deeply political conspiracy, to deflect from the openly manufactured nature and your weird stalinist apologist thing you’ve got going on where millions of “lives saved” (pop quiz: how do you measure that?) somehow outweighs millions of deaths. Maybe there is a similarity with the term “holocaust”, which would seem kinda fair given the scale of the killing. But you know, there isn’t. Like there provably isn’t, it was a term coined from the original meaning of the word “holocaust” before “The Holocaust” even happened.
Just come on with this. They share a similar root.
Because that’s the name it was given by the Ukranian peoples that survived it?
Then why don’t we use any Indian names for the very many famines in India due to British occupation? Why do we call them neutral names like “Bengal famine” and not “exterminatron 3000”?
millions of “lives saved” (pop quiz: how do you measure that?)
Demographic extrapolations and comparative economics. Example: Brazil between 1930 and 1960 went from 36 years to 52. USSR went from 30 to 65. By comparing the evolution of socialist life metrics with capitalist life metrics at starting equal levels of development, you can find out that socialism massively boosted life metrics. You can also compare with the country itself in pre- and post- socialist times:
Surely you, so concerned with Ukrainians, knew about the horrifying demographic crisis caused by the capitalist restoration? The millions of lives lost and ruined by unemployment, suicide, malnutrition, defunding of healthcare and treatable disease, alcoholism, drug abuse and violent crime. Now, compare the hiccup in the graph in the 1930s, with the unrecoverable drop after 1990. And look at the vertical axis.
Then why don’t we use any Indian names for the very many famines in India due to British occupation?
Do you mean dramatized names like the Great Bengal Famine? The Bengali name is “Chiẏāttōrēr mônbôntôr (lit. 'Famine of ‘76’)”, which is pretty vague given how many famines have happened in the world. Probably it merits the fancier name because it was the first one under british rule. Or did you perhaps mean the Doji bara / Skull Famine (bengali: lit ‘many skulls’), which you know, not very dramatic at all and a pretty fair example of us using the indian name.
Demographic extrapolations and comparative economics.
Hi! I’m a data scientist specializing in public health data modeling and I’m sorry, that was a little mean of me to bait you like that, it’s a trick question: proving lives saved is the classic example of bad statistics and proving negatives. The assumptions required to make a definite statement about lives saved in a historical event are easy to make, but are necessarily so restrictive that they render any conclusions valueless unless you have definite conditions within a narrow time scope (like in a vaccine rollout or cholera outbreak). That’s why meaningless phrases like “Demographic extrapolations and comparative economics” are such an easy thing to parrot - you’re just saying “and then we do statistics, QED” without having to engage with the actual difficult part (the math).
Does comparative economics correlate to deaths? Sure! It correlates to just about everything you could ever want! The most famous example is the hemline index, which has spurred over a century of debate as to the actual causal connections (and if the theory itself even has merit). But proving that causal link to lives saved? Now that’s a damn tricky problem, and some really promising methodology has only recently arisen from the management of ventilator shortages during covid in the US (and it’s still being developed!) I highly recommend looking into it, it’s a fascinating field of research right now.
Edit: Wow, you know what, I’m gonna just point to the entire sections of the wikipedia article you got that graphic from titled “Population Decline” and “Fertility and natalist policies” to address the population decline, instead of just redundantly addressing all the… uh… rigorously cited claims you just laid out.
I wouldn’t associate that with a revolution though. Similar to how the “Irish potato famine” was something the brits did to Ireland that’s a thing the soviets did to their colonies, essentially and I would probably chalk it up to a type of colonialism
I don’t think I’ve ever up voted a comment of yours. But you are 100% on point about Lysenko. His promotion and the treatment of Vavilov are emblematic of a few of the many many flaws of Leninism. Vavilov was at least posthumously exonerated.Though he still died in a Siberian gulag for the crime of disagreeing with comrade Stalin, and sticking to the evidence.
There was no one single cause, and trying to deflect blame onto a single (exceptionally whackdoodle) pseudoscientific theory is intellectually dishonest at best, and regular dishonest at worst.
Man yeah, the fall of Lysenkoism is really the defining moment of mid-late 1940s soviet russia. Couldn’t possibly have been any other factors which played into the shift in cultural attitudes within the soviet union at that time. Nope, must have been down to Lysenkoism itself falling out of favor.
Also it ended in the 60s and the last big soviet famine was in 47s so idk about that timeline
Yes, eventually the industrialization of Soviet farming paid off despite his nonsense.
Doesn’t stop it from being the major cause (beyond deliberate genocidal policies) of the interwar famines. As you can provably see when it spread to Mao’s newly formed Chinese state and, surprise, caused famines again when they didn’t have the sheer output of an industrialized agrarianian sector to make up for it.
The Four Pests Campaign obviously didn’t help in that regard but Lysenkoism was part and parcel of it, with Mao officially adopting it as state policy and Lysenkoism trained advisors setting specific policy goals.
Sure, it was a pervasive piece of reasoning that existed in a system which would kill you if you tried to criticize the pseudoscience du jour. It had a large influence in soviet culture, yep, but it was absolutely not the sole driving force behind things like the Holodomor, or the other many famines.
To be fair, fat cat capitalist hoarding wealth have caused exponentially more. Counted the homeless in your community lately. Year in, year out. They might be invisible to you … but they are there. Millions of them – year in, and year out. Starving. Homeless.
To be fair, a lot of communist revolution did result in mass starvation.
As a precursor, sure. The OG 1918 October Revolution was fueled by a string of famines, exacerbated by the World War.
The American Bonus Marchers of 1932 were also propelled by food shortages of The Dust Bowl.
But these events get vanishingly little coverage in western history textbooks
Which communist revolution? Russia was having famines before the soviet revolution. Its more reasonable to say communism solved the famines in russia and created them in china.
Eh the Soviets had plenty of their own man made famine (Holodomor, among others)
The Soviet Famine of the collectivization, which you inappropriately label “Holodomor” (scary word for a specific famine to make it sound like holocaust, I wonder if you have any other special scary words for other famines) is indeed an unfortunate event of Soviet History. Yet, you fail to see it in the bigger picture.
First of all, even during the famine, life expectancy remained higher than in Tsarist times, because of increasing access to healthcare and nutrition on average to peasants.
Secondly, the famine is an unfortunate consequence of the necessity of rapid collectivization and industrialization because of threat of external invasion. There was intense debate in the CPSU at the time regarding rapid collectivization and industrialization vs. progressive one, and ultimately rapid industrialization won because of the perceived threat of invasion by industrialized western powers with 100 years of industrialization behind their backs. Famously, in 1931, Stalin said in a speech that the USSR was 100 years behind and would have to make up for that difference in 10 years or they would be eliminated. Almost exactly 10 years later, Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
By industrializing rapidly (15% yearly growth of GDP) thanks to rapid collectivization of agriculture, not only did the Soviet Union defeat Nazism and save every European nationality between Germany and the Urals from Nazi genocide (hence saving tens of millions of lives), but this rapid development managed to raise life expectancy from below 30 years old in 1929 to above 60 bu 1960, effectively saving tens of millions of lives more. By any demographic metric you use, compared to what came before (Tsarism) and what came after (capitalism), the USSR saved tens of millions of lives. Capitalism is the one that brought unemployment, hunger, drug abuse, violent crime, and a reduction of life expectancy after decades of progress.
Don’t believe me? Go check the data:
The word was used in print in the 1930s in Ukrainian diaspora publications in Czechoslovakia as Haladamor
Try again, buddy.
edit: Also, the Holodomor specifically refers to the famine within Ukraine which killed millions, while the “Soviet Famine of the collectivization” (a specific name I can find referenced nowhere else, is that a translation?) is (evidently) the broad famine impacting the USSR of which the Holodomor was a part.
And why exactly did that term stick in the west, only transliterated as Holodomor instead? And why is it overwhelmingly discussed with this term since the 2000s? Maybe because the usage of the word is political in nature as I explained?
As for the name of the famine broadly, in Wikipedia it appears as Soviet famine of 1930-1933.
Because that’s the name it was given by the Ukranian peoples that survived it? I’m not sure what your point is here when you agree that it’s a transliteration of the name.
It’s not exactly a disputed fact that things like the Holodomor didn’t gain much traction in western literature until after the fall of the soviet union, because that’s when western literature was able to access it.
Add to it that the soviets violently suppressed reporting on it within the USSR, which you can even see reflected in that graph, explains the lack of occurrence in non-western works. That seems, you know, pretty gosh dang basic.
You’re seriously arguing the pretty straightforward etymology of this word is some kind of deeply political conspiracy, to deflect from the openly manufactured nature and your weird stalinist apologist thing you’ve got going on where millions of “lives saved” (pop quiz: how do you measure that?) somehow outweighs millions of deaths. Maybe there is a similarity with the term “holocaust”, which would seem kinda fair given the scale of the killing. But you know, there isn’t. Like there provably isn’t, it was a term coined from the original meaning of the word “holocaust” before “The Holocaust” even happened.
Just come on with this. They share a similar root.
Then why don’t we use any Indian names for the very many famines in India due to British occupation? Why do we call them neutral names like “Bengal famine” and not “exterminatron 3000”?
Demographic extrapolations and comparative economics. Example: Brazil between 1930 and 1960 went from 36 years to 52. USSR went from 30 to 65. By comparing the evolution of socialist life metrics with capitalist life metrics at starting equal levels of development, you can find out that socialism massively boosted life metrics. You can also compare with the country itself in pre- and post- socialist times:
Surely you, so concerned with Ukrainians, knew about the horrifying demographic crisis caused by the capitalist restoration? The millions of lives lost and ruined by unemployment, suicide, malnutrition, defunding of healthcare and treatable disease, alcoholism, drug abuse and violent crime. Now, compare the hiccup in the graph in the 1930s, with the unrecoverable drop after 1990. And look at the vertical axis.
Do you mean dramatized names like the Great Bengal Famine? The Bengali name is “Chiẏāttōrēr mônbôntôr (lit. 'Famine of ‘76’)”, which is pretty vague given how many famines have happened in the world. Probably it merits the fancier name because it was the first one under british rule. Or did you perhaps mean the Doji bara / Skull Famine (bengali: lit ‘many skulls’), which you know, not very dramatic at all and a pretty fair example of us using the indian name.
Hi! I’m a data scientist specializing in public health data modeling and I’m sorry, that was a little mean of me to bait you like that, it’s a trick question: proving lives saved is the classic example of bad statistics and proving negatives. The assumptions required to make a definite statement about lives saved in a historical event are easy to make, but are necessarily so restrictive that they render any conclusions valueless unless you have definite conditions within a narrow time scope (like in a vaccine rollout or cholera outbreak). That’s why meaningless phrases like “Demographic extrapolations and comparative economics” are such an easy thing to parrot - you’re just saying “and then we do statistics, QED” without having to engage with the actual difficult part (the math).
Does comparative economics correlate to deaths? Sure! It correlates to just about everything you could ever want! The most famous example is the hemline index, which has spurred over a century of debate as to the actual causal connections (and if the theory itself even has merit). But proving that causal link to lives saved? Now that’s a damn tricky problem, and some really promising methodology has only recently arisen from the management of ventilator shortages during covid in the US (and it’s still being developed!) I highly recommend looking into it, it’s a fascinating field of research right now.
Edit: Wow, you know what, I’m gonna just point to the entire sections of the wikipedia article you got that graphic from titled “Population Decline” and “Fertility and natalist policies” to address the population decline, instead of just redundantly addressing all the… uh… rigorously cited claims you just laid out.
I wouldn’t associate that with a revolution though. Similar to how the “Irish potato famine” was something the brits did to Ireland that’s a thing the soviets did to their colonies, essentially and I would probably chalk it up to a type of colonialism
Lysenkoism was the cause of both Soviet and Chinese non-war related famines, a grand tragedy only possible under an authoritarian fever dream.
Ignore the lessons of history if you want, it just makes you the villain of the next cycle.
I don’t think I’ve ever up voted a comment of yours. But you are 100% on point about Lysenko. His promotion and the treatment of Vavilov are emblematic of a few of the many many flaws of Leninism. Vavilov was at least posthumously exonerated.Though he still died in a Siberian gulag for the crime of disagreeing with comrade Stalin, and sticking to the evidence.
There was no one single cause, and trying to deflect blame onto a single (exceptionally whackdoodle) pseudoscientific theory is intellectually dishonest at best, and regular dishonest at worst.
Funny, because it and the pre-industrial cyclical famines ended when his policies did.
Man yeah, the fall of Lysenkoism is really the defining moment of mid-late 1940s soviet russia. Couldn’t possibly have been any other factors which played into the shift in cultural attitudes within the soviet union at that time. Nope, must have been down to Lysenkoism itself falling out of favor.
Also it ended in the 60s and the last big soviet famine was in 47s so idk about that timelineYes, eventually the industrialization of Soviet farming paid off despite his nonsense.
Doesn’t stop it from being the major cause (beyond deliberate genocidal policies) of the interwar famines. As you can provably see when it spread to Mao’s newly formed Chinese state and, surprise, caused famines again when they didn’t have the sheer output of an industrialized agrarianian sector to make up for it.
The Four Pests Campaign obviously didn’t help in that regard but Lysenkoism was part and parcel of it, with Mao officially adopting it as state policy and Lysenkoism trained advisors setting specific policy goals.
Sure, it was a pervasive piece of reasoning that existed in a system which would kill you if you tried to criticize the pseudoscience du jour. It had a large influence in soviet culture, yep, but it was absolutely not the sole driving force behind things like the Holodomor, or the other many famines.
To be fair, fat cat capitalist hoarding wealth have caused exponentially more. Counted the homeless in your community lately. Year in, year out. They might be invisible to you … but they are there. Millions of them – year in, and year out. Starving. Homeless.