I mean they were in school, they had jobs, i just dont get whyd they try to upset thingd, yes the government was harsh and wrong to disperse that croud like that but it seemed better than what happened after the revolution.
shareZhivago's family were wealthy land owners [a mansion in Moscow and a place in the country]. Lara's mother ran a clothing shop which catered to the upper class.
They were very much in the minority. The bulk of the population lived in slums with little to eat.
A violent change was inevitable. The people hoped that this change would improve their lot. In many cases it didn't.
Best decade for film - 1967/1976
Countless people were starving in Russia. The revolution promised better living conditions for workers, and that everybody would have enough to eat. Contrast that with a situation where a small percentage of people are living in luxury while most of the rest are starving. The communist leaders addressed the needs of the people, while the Czar did virtually nothing to improve their lives.
We, today, know the final results…that the government continued a terror rule, it was just different rulers. But the people back then, of course, did not know them.
Mind note to the Chinese: As in 1918, 1949 and 1959, revolutions do happen, from poor to rich, from the country to the big cities, and they're always messy, bloddy, and end up with systems much worse than the previous one. Cuba, China, Russia... always ending up with a system everybody, the big mass, thinks it's the best. Private property is kaput, and everybody gets a ration card. Communism is the bastard child of injustice and brutal capitalism. We know that. Lenin knew that.
Javier H. Moreno
www.cacaorock.com
I think Capitalism when spoken about sounds good but just doesnt work because people are well people, if everyone was willing to work and not care that there job gets the same as another then it would work but people want more or are just plane corrupt and that is where capitalism fails. The human elemnt kills it. Also it seems to me and I could be wrong but I dont think I am but it seems like communist countries always have problems with people trying to take over the government , to usurp the previous leader. I mean that seems to be a big problem too. Always some new revolutionist in town who thinks he can do better. I know democracies do this too but it is usually through legal means and also less violent...
shareWhen I was in school, I had a teacher who liked to tell a joke:
Q: What's the difference between communism and capitalism?
A: Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism, it's the other way around.
by EmilioCacao » Mon Jan 28 2013 ..To believe that communism is somehow the child of capitalism is to believe that capitalism existed in these countries. You'd have to explain how being a serf to the Czar or some Chinese warlord were fostering capitalistic ideology. Of course when I speak of capitalism, I mean Laissez-faire.
Mind note to the Chinese: As in 1918, 1949 and 1959, revolutions do happen, from poor to rich, from the country to the big cities, and they're always messy, bloddy, and end up with systems much worse than the previous one. Cuba, China, Russia... always ending up with a system everybody, the big mass, thinks it's the best. Private property is kaput, and everybody gets a ration card. Communism is the bastard child of injustice and brutal capitalism. We know that. Lenin knew that.
To believe that communism is somehow the child of capitalism is to believe that capitalism existed in these countries.It did. Communism does not automatically imply an absence of capitalism, either in theory or in practice. I'm not interested in the theory but the practice was a different matter. One of the things the Central Committee tried to do as a result of so-called "War Communism" - where everything was being produced to support the war effort - was to stamp out the co-operative markets. These were informally arranged markets where farmers came to the bigger towns to sell their produce because they could not get enough for it in rural areas. Despite attempts to eradicate them, they persisted and were one aspect of society which carried over from Czarist times to post the Civil War era. That's about as laissez faire as you are likely to find anywhere, since there was no possibility of price fixing and everything was done on a cash basis.
Yes, exactly. The promise of the Revolution was "bread and work." The conditions were quite similar to the horrible conditions endured by the French working classes just prior to the French Revolution, well over a century before the Russian Revolution. And the seeds of discontent were the same -- wealth too thinly distributed and controlled, through various means, by a very small percentage of the population (ancien regime in France), starving masses unable to support families and enduring terrible working conditions. This is why revolutions happen.
"I love those redheads!" (Wooderson, Dazed and Confused, 1993)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
Pure and simple. The stupid Tsar dragged Russia into the war. The Germans kicked their asses and took great parts of western Russia. Millions of poor Russians died in WWI and there was great food shortages. Nicholas II was overthrown in February of 1917, but the democratic Provisional Government refused to quit the War. Probably from pressure from Great Britain and France. The Russian Army launched offensives in summer of 1917, which failed miserably. The Russian Army then basically quit. The Germans walked through Byelorussia, the Baltics and Ukraine. The war had to be stopped and the Bolsheviks promised to do so.
And who the hell could know the misery that would befall Russia after 1917. The Civil War (3 million dead), Collectivization (no one knows), the Holodomor(2-7 million), the Great Purges(1.5 million) and then the Second World War (20-27 million).
You're nearly a laugh, but you're really a cry.
[deleted]
I visited the Hermitage in St Petersburg several years ago and the subject of Czar Nicholas II came up. The guide said pretty much the same thing you did and then added Nicholas would have been better off being an artist or a photographer and living with his family out in the country. But... he thought he was ordained by God to the Czar, so he stuck with the job even though he wasn't fit for it.
shareFurther to that, while Nicholas was indeed not stupid (in the sense of having low intelligence), he was poorly educated, and this was unfortunately his father's fault. Alexander III had planned to start Nicholas on his training for becoming Tsar when he turned 30 -- but Alexander's illness and early death meant that Nicholas was thrust into the position at 23 with no preparation whatever; he even said at the time that he had no idea even how to speak to the ministers, or conduct a meeting. He had virtually no understanding of the political and economic issues affecting Russia and the decisions he made in his ignorance proved disastrous.
Apart from intelligence, though, Nicholas also was a poor candidate for leadership due to his weak character. This was something his mother was quite aware of early on and one reason she opposed his engagement to Alexandra (Princess Alix as she then was). She had observed from her early years that Alix was somewhat mentally unstable and exercised undue influence on Nicholas. But when Alexander's illness was clearly terminal she relented and they were married not long after the tsar's death.
I think, however, that although it's true Nicholas didn't want to be a tsar, and didn't know how, he still bears responsibility for making no effort to learn the skills to be an effective leader. He ran away from his responsibilities (literally, by ensconsing himself at Tsarskoe Selo) and was perversely pigheaded in not using talented people available to him, or studying the issues facing the nation.
[deleted]
The Czar was better. The revolution happened only because Russia fared badly in the war. The Bolsheviks and other dissident factions in Russia were receiving considerable subsidiaries from the German Emprie during the war, just for help to wreck Russia from inside. And that was the only thing Lenin really was good for; a demagogue to turn the state upside down. "Revolution this, revolution that and nothing after the revolution".
In one Gulag memoirs there was a story how one man was put in there, only because he had uttered once that shoes had been cheaper before the revolution.
Reality television spoils fiction.
In one Gulag memoirs there was a story how one man was put in there, only because he had uttered once that shoes had been cheaper before the revolution.
Regulation of workers ' conditions predates Communism by decades.
The famine in Russia occurred after the Reds took over.
The Czar was better. The revolution happened only because Russia fared badly in the war.This is a massive, massive oversimplification and ignores a lot of basic truths. First of all, as has been described, most Russians were very badly off, especially compared with the rest of Europe. First of all - and most notable - was the extreme poverty most people lived in. Second of all was the lack of education, since by 1900, only about 5% of the population were literate. Health care was virtually non-existent and relied on traditional remedies and religion for cures. Third, Russia only became a partial democracy in 1905, prior to which it had been a 100% autocracy. Peasants had no rights whatsoever. In fact, until 1861, they had been effectively slaves, serfdom being indentured servitude. Read "The Russian Revolution: A People's Tragedy" by Orlando Figes. Most people think that Russia was a happy place until a bunch of communists came along and shot everyone. It wasn't exactly "The Lion King".
In one Gulag memoirs there was a story how one man was put in there, only because he had uttered once that shoes had been cheaper before the revolution.So? That was probably 20 years later. If you read a lot of the replies on the first page of this thread you will realise that where such levels of oppression are the norm, a violent revolution is almost an inevitability. When oppressed people rise up, they are very often worse then those who preceded them. That is not a matter of what their political philosophy is, It's an inevitable consequence of human nature. In any event, it's not relevant to this movie. share
why did the americans made revolution, I mean they were in school, they had jobs, i just dont get whyd they try to upset thingd, yes the government was harsh and wrong to disperse that croud like that but it seemed better than what happened after the revolution.
why did jesus die on the cross, I mean they were in school, they had jobs, i just dont get whyd they try to upset thingd, yes the government was harsh and wrong to disperse that croud like that but it seemed better than what happened after the crucifixion.
i can go on forever
I hold that all revolutions are wrong
I wish America had stayed British
[deleted]
Shut up! The average Russian lived like shit.