Thread: Lenin: Good or bad?

Originally Posted by Lampada

Теперь Говорухин дискредитирован.
Значит мы никогда не узнаем правды о путинских временах.

Зато мы узнаем "правду" о коммунистических временах.

Originally Posted by jnllll

Хм... Необычный поворот. Вам, видимо, нужно внимательнее прочитать мой пост.

You need to read my post more carefully.

Ага, в спешке не поняла юмора.

Just like all dictators, he had his ups and downs.

Говорухин необъективен. Нехорошо ради поддержки своих взглядов использовать такие материалы, в которых произвольно обращаются с цифрами.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Говорухин необъективен. Нехорошо ради поддержки своих взглядов использовать такие материалы, в которых произвольно обращаются с цифрами.

Как ты понимаешь, для политика нет необходимости использовать точные материалы. Для сторонников нужны слова похлеще, а противники всё равно тебя не слушают, что бы ты не сказал. Или обвиняют во лжи. Или в ангажированности. Политик должен работать на "свою" аудиторию. А если ему задают неудобный вопрос, он должен отвечать на совсем другой вопрос, причём заранее заготовленным ответом. Политику нужно захватить и удержать власть, а не найти некую объективную правду, которой всё равно не существует.

Вот, допустим, приходит толпа и говорит: "Эй, чувак, выборы-то шулерские, как же так?" А ты им в ответ и вмажь посильнее: "А вам что - надоело в Египет ездить отдыхать?!!" Толпа почешет в затылке, да и разойдётся восвояси. Вот тогда всё будет комильфо.

Molodets
The question about Lenin is too complex. Very complex. People, who knows history well, discuss it even for now.
I think, you willn't get the correct answer on this forum.
Let me give you two advices to get the truth by yourself.

At first, you must specify your question. I think, you mean "good or bad" characteristic not for Lenin's person himself, but for the result of his actions for russian history, yea?
At the second, you MUST learn about conditions and state of Russia country at this time. Only after this you may think about his actions and results.

But, what isn't discussable - it that Lenin was greatest historical actor in the world history of XX-XXI centuries. "Greatest" didn't mean "good" or "bad", I mean that most of the further history (especially Cold War) was consequences of Russian revolution in 1917.

Originally Posted by dondublon

The question about Lenin is too complex. Very complex. People, who knows know history well, discuss it even for now.
I think, you willn't get the correct answer on this forum.
Let me give you two advices two pieces of advice to get the truth by yourself.

if you don't like it to be corrected - sorry

Why not "two advices" , but "two pieces of advice "? Is "advice" not(or un?)computable pronounce?

Originally Posted by jnllll

Why not "two advices" , but "two pieces of advice "? Is "advice" not(or un?)computable pronounce?

That's just a thing about English. Some words need to have "a piece of" in front of them. You cannot use them alone.

The only example I can think of right now is "information" but there are plenty more.

You have to say "a piece of information" not just "an information" (that's wrong).

It only applies to a few words, so you can memorize all of them.

Originally Posted by Hanna

That's just a thing about English. Some words need to have "a piece of" in front of them. You cannot use them alone.

The only example I can think of right now is "information" but there are plenty more.

You have to say "a piece of information" not just "an information" (that's wrong).

It only applies to a few words, so you can memorize all of them.

Thank you. It is interesting.

Originally Posted by jnllll

Why not "two advices" , but "two pieces of advice "? Is "advice" not(or un?)computable pronounce?

it's doesn't have plural form
I switched to "suggestions" not to slip on the advice when I speak

Originally Posted by jnllll

Why not "two advices" , but "two pieces of advice "? Is "advice" not(or un?)computable pronounce?

If you're asking if it's a countable noun, no it's not. The biggest difficulty about learning a new foreign language is, it isn't always completely mapped to the one you speak.

В моих мыслях "pronounce" и "noun" почему-то стали эквивалентны. Мой словарный запас английских слов очень беден. Я похож на ту собаку, которая почти всё понимает, только сказать ничего не может.

Я хотел выяснить, применяется ли форма "a piece of ..." только к неисчисляемым существительным. Судя по ответам - это действительно так.

Originally Posted by jnllll

В моих мыслях "pronounce" и "noun" почему-то стали эквивалентны. Мой словарный запас английских слов очень беден. Я похож на ту собаку, которая почти всё понимает, только сказать ничего не может.

Я хотел выяснить, применяется ли форма "a piece of ..." только к неисчисляемым существительным. Судя по ответам - это действительно так.

главное не забывать артикль когда говоришь "a piece of", а то без артикля может получится "piss off"

I doubt if the Romanovs or the Tsars can industrialize the Soviet Union with hundreds of millions of tractors and harvesters. Buying these tractors from USA would be the natural result if the Tsar were then in power. Whom do you empower but America. Lenin was a Marxist in good faith. All he wanted to was to further the cause without malice aforethought.. I think he was a good man..

Originally Posted by heartfelty

I doubt if the Romanovs or the Tsars can industrialize the Soviet Union with hundreds of millions of tractors and harvesters. Buying these tractors from USA would be the natural result if the Tsar were then in power. Whom do you empower but America. Lenin was a Marxist in good faith. All he wanted to was to further the cause without malice aforethought.. I think he was a good man..

I think the entire industrialization project was highly controversial. It came at a price. The other countries which participated in the WWI did fine without the industrialization somehow.

Very slow pace of industrialization. The state planner allocated just enough resources for basic needs which were very sufficient and allocated most of the resources on a rapid electrification program, construction of dams, and irrigation engines, etc. If I were a state planner in future communist Philippines, I would only allocate 10% of what capitalist system allocate to filmmaking under free enterprise which are waste given that these films result in accounting losses and have no intellectual nor ethical value...Waste, my friend, is negligible under state planning.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

Very slow pace of industrialization. The state planner allocated just enough resources for basic needs which were very sufficient and allocated most of the resources on a rapid electrification program, construction of dams, and irrigation engines, etc. If I were a state planner in future communist Philippines, I would only allocate 10% of what capitalist system allocate to filmmaking under free enterprise which are waste given that these films result in accounting losses and have no intellectual nor ethical value...Waste, my friend, is negligible under state planning.

Are you serious about advocating the central state planning? Also, the claim of "basic needs which were very sufficient" needs more support. To the best of my knowledge, the industrialization (First Five-Year Plan (Soviet Union) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) strangely was followed by the famine (Soviet famine of 1932–1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which "killed many millions". And the famine strangely did not stop the central planners from proceeding with the Second Five-Year plan to further industrialize the country (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%...82%D0%BA%D0%B0). That's what I meant when mentioning that the industrialization came at a price. The price of millions dead from hunger. Men, women and children. So far so good for the rapid industrialization?

I want to be as polite as I would like to be. The alleged famine and deaths were timed when Hitler invaded Stalingard, Leningard and the food basket, Ukraine. Ten years after the war, were there famine casualties? None!

Yesterday was my nomination to act as Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army. I don't know what transpired last night. But rumours were I was a close second. Hence, maybe I would be next. I am serious because there were serious flaws in the way Americans portray Stalin and Lenin. They were all false rumours. As I said I want to be as polite as you want me to be. No offense.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

I want to be as polite as I would like to be. The alleged famine and deaths were timed when Hitler invaded Stalingard, Leningard and the food basket, Ukraine.

I will also try to be as polite as possible. You see, during the famine of 1932-1933 caused by the rapid industrialization policy, Hitler was unable to invade neither Stalingard, nor Leningard nor the food basket, Ukraine. He was only appointed chancellor of Germany on January 1933 (Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The invasions you're talking about happened almost a decade later.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

I am serious because there were serious flaws in the way Americans portray Stalin and Lenin. They were all false rumours. As I said I want to be as polite as you want me to be. No offense.

Don't worry, I can't be offended. Let me clear the atmosphere a little bit. Lenin didn't start industrialization. On the opposite, Lenin started the New Economic Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which actually meant a step back to the capitalism. That helped to overcome the shortage of food cause by the civil war. By the time Stalin started the industrialization, there was no widespread shortage of food. But, the country was an agrarian country. The industrialization meant putting an end to the New Economic Policy drastically increasing the industrial output at the expense of drastically lowering the agrarian output. That caused the famine, but the Politbureau headed by Stalin didn't care much, because mostly the famine killed the peasants, which by that time were by large part the foes of the Communist regime. So, like you said, there are lots of false rumours about Lenin and Stalin.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

Yesterday was my nomination to act as Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army. I don't know what transpired last night. But rumours were I was a close second. Hence, maybe I would be next.

I'm confident the Communist Party of the Philippines would be lucky to have you as the Chairman. By all means, that would continue the glorious tradition of having the Communist Party rulers, whose education leaves a lot to be desired.