Thread: Demographic dynamics under socialism + tidbits of Putin + related stuff

Originally Posted by diogen_

But the idea that socialism positively contributes to the growth of population is definitely false. After the coup of 1917 the level of childbirth decreased dramatically in the USSR in comparison with that of the Russian Empire.

Nice facts twisting
So higher death rates are consequences of socialism? But not consequences of three revolutions and two world wars?
Propaganda detected.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Nice facts twisting
So higher death rates are consequences of socialism? But not consequences of three revolutions and two world wars?
Propaganda detected.

Why are you jumping the gun and don’t want to read the article first? All the answers to your vitriolic diatribe are given there. Some of them are connected with socialism, some not.

Однако, наряду с эволюционными и потому достаточно плавными переходными процессами, в условиях СССР 20 в. огромную роль играли катастрофические события, резко искажавшие эволюционный характер демографического развития. В частности, в советской истории четко выделяются три кризисных периода, во время которых наблюдалось резкое снижение общего числа рождений в стране: 1915-1922 гг. (первая мировая война, гражданская война, голод); 1930-1936 гг. (коллективизация, голод); 1941-1948 гг. (Великая Отечественная война, голод). Обращают на себя внимание почти одинаковая длительность кризисов и чрезвычайно малое число спокойных лет между ними (табл. 1)

And sorry, you need to provide some valid statistical arguments about the positive contribution of socialism to the trend of childbirth to look convincing. Irony doesn't count here.))

Originally Posted by diogen_

Why are you jumping the gun and don’t want to read the article first? All the answers to your vitriolic diatribe are given there. Some of them are connected with socialism, some not.

Because you conveniently omitted some parts of the article that wouldn't fit certain narrative.
I've seen such a pattern many-many times and it usually happens on MSM that spread Russophobic propaganda.
Just saying.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Because you conveniently omitted some parts of the article that wouldn't fit certain narrative.
I've seen such a pattern many-many times and it usually happens on MSM that spread Russophobic propaganda.
Just saying.

No,I didn’t. I give an excerpt and the link from where it was cut from. No legerdemain was done with the extract. I don’t have to copy and paste the whole article. It’s a spam.

First we need to agree to a definition of socialism and countries that have/had it.

Surely we need to agree to come to terms with the definition but only if you disagree that the USSR refers to it.)) Otherwise, it’s an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. Please stay focused on the topic!))

Originally Posted by diogen_

No,I didn’t. I give an excerpt and the link from where it was cut from. No legerdemain was done with the extract. I don’t have to copy and paste the whole article. It’s a spam.

You have drawn your conclusion based on certain parts of the article you posted.
The conclusion however is misleading and provocative and now you are tying to mask it with referring to original articles which is, in whole, does not confirm you conclusion but rather disproves it.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Surely we need to agree to come to terms with the definition but only if you disagree that the USSR refers to it.

Your statement does not make much sense to me. You probably would have to elaborate a little. If you want to continue of course.

Originally Posted by hddscan

You have drawn your conclusion based on certain parts of the article you posted.
The conclusion however is misleading and provocative and now you are tying to mask it with referring to original articles which is, in whole, does not confirm you conclusion but rather disproves it.

Your statement does not make much sense to me. You probably would have to elaborate a little. If you want to continue of course.

It’s just blah blah blah to save face. With the above you didn't contribute with something substantial to the discussion beside some sweeping generalizations of my possible "true" intentions based on your unconfirmed suggestions. Please provide some specific facts with links on how the socialism in the USSR positively contributed to the demography of this country instead of pretending you don't understand what I mean.))

Originally Posted by diogen_

It’s just blah blah blah to save face. With the above you didn't contribute with something substantial to the discussion beside some sweeping generalizations of my possible "true" intentions based on your unconfirmed suggestions.

You mean on the contrary of your blah blah blah?

Originally Posted by diogen_

Please provide some specific facts with links on how the socialism in the USSR positively contributed to the demography of this country instead of pretending you don't understand what I mean.))

I don't need to provide such facts, because I have never said neither that socialism did some remarkable contributions to the demography nor I stated that socialism caused any decline to the demography.
You on the other hand said that

Originally Posted by diogen_

But the idea that socialism positively contributes to the growth of population is definitely false.

And yet failed to provide facts to prove that, because the article you referring to says:

Социальные потрясения 20 века на всем пространстве бывшего СССР - войны, голод, массовое насилие в ходе революционных процессов и социально-экономических экспериментов - нарушили естественный ход демографической эволюции и непосредственным образом сказались на демографических судьбах поколений, испытавших воздействие чрезвычайных обстоятельств на тех или иных отрезках времени своей жизни.

I merely pointed out that such a conclusion looks like a Russophobic propaganda to me.

And now you trying to provoke a fight, so moderator would close the whole topic. Don't, just go pick a fight somewhere else.

Originally Posted by diogen_

And sorry, you need to provide some valid statistical arguments about the positive contribution of socialism to the trend of childbirth to look convincing.

First we need to agree to a definition of socialism and countries that have/had it.