Comment by lbrito | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbrito | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's a really poor example.

>Russia was ruled by tyrannical czars for centuries before Communism - does that mean the actions of Communist leaders like Stalin were really the czars' fault?

Absolutely yes, a thousand times. Maybe Nicky wasn't responsible for the colors Stalin picked for his office walls, but most of the important, nation-wide decisions were obviously affected by how (dismally) Nicky ran things.

>For how long can you blame the czars when they're no longer in power?

I'd say a very long time, probably centuries. I'm sure there's a PhD thesis or other publication somewhere estimating how long each economic/social policy impacted the country. Note that this isn't the same as saying "meh, we found it like this, let's not do anything".

>And who does it serve?

Anyone who's interested in learning from history and not repeating mistakes from the past?

>It seems to me blaming the long gone czars mostly serves as a distraction from corruption in the successor government.

It seems to me blaming the successor government mostly serves as a distraction from the very real, very recent despotism and absolutism of semi-medieval tsardom.

Well if you go back far enough isn't everything the Romans' fault? Even the C(ae)zars styled themselves as inheritors of the Roman Empire.

> Note that this isn't the same as saying "meh, we found it like this, let's not do anything".

But isn't that how it's often deployed? "Don't look at me, blame the previous boss!" is an age old diversion strategy.

Right, that's why I said "I'd say a very long time, probably centuries", not "for eternity".

>But isn't that how it's often deployed? "Don't look at me, blame the previous boss!" is an age old diversion strategy.

It sure is, which is why I made that remark. My point is this kind of misuse doesn't automatically make the original claim false.

Also, the mirror-image claim is just as frequently deployed: don't look too closely at the skeletons in the closet; we now have a magical clean slate.

From a Russian history class long ago, we were taught that Russia has essentially had bad luck with their rulers _forever_, but they also typically have had strong/brutal centralized governments, it is all they know. It seems logical that would really affect the current state of things.

I think your claim is ridiculous. Please explain why stalin's purges in the 30s, the decision to occupy and install puppet governments in eastern europe, and the failure to reform the economy in the 80s (perestroika) was the fault of the tsars.

You can't.

Please read my statement again, perhaps without vitriol this time:

>but most of the important, nation-wide decisions were obviously affected by how (dismally) Nicky ran things.

Observe the word most. Just as I was saying the tsars definitively were responsible for most (note the word carefully again) of the momentous decisions later, it should be painfully obvious that they weren't responsible for 100% of all actions forever after. This is ridiculously obvious in any non-insanely polarized debate, which unfortunately isn't always the case of HN.

Most is at least over 50% (I would say "most" implies 70-80%). Your statement as written implies that 50+% of the important decisions made during soviet times were influenced by the tsar's previous actions. That is (still) ridiculous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com