Does not follow...

If it doesnt fit anywhere else but you still want to share, this is the place
Post Reply
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12397
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Does not follow...

Post by HTRN »

Its actually cheaper to get a rebarrell on of the Browning 71s to 50 Alaskan.. :shock: :ugeek:
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Netpackrat »

Cobar wrote:
Netpackrat wrote:Just watched Ian and Karl's latest video, and I would recommend everybody else do so as well...

Dangerous Things Are Dangerous
Yup, that is a good one. I need to take their advice.
They didn't mention it in the video, but it seems to also be an additional argument in favor of wearing some sort of body armor at the range. Even the lowest rated armor would have made it a non-injury event.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Jericho941 »

Something a lot of Americans don’t realize when talking about Russia is that they’ve never had a conception of private property. In Tsarist times, all the property in the Empire belonged, personally to the Tsar, who would distribute it as he or she saw fit. The nobility’s money was measured not in land, but in souls. The Russian peasantry, going back to Prechristian times, ran communal farms known as mir that became the standard farming unit in Tsarist times. Private property didn’t exist in full in Russia until 2001. So when people talk about Russia in the 1990′s as “adapting to Capitalism for the first time”, they’re not talking about “for the first time since 1917.” They mean, quite literally, that Russia transitioned from feudal slavery to Communism, with a minor break to a hybrid Feudalistic-Capitalistic system that existed for roughly 40 years.
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Vonz90 »

Jericho941 wrote:
Something a lot of Americans don’t realize when talking about Russia is that they’ve never had a conception of private property. In Tsarist times, all the property in the Empire belonged, personally to the Tsar, who would distribute it as he or she saw fit. The nobility’s money was measured not in land, but in souls. The Russian peasantry, going back to Prechristian times, ran communal farms known as mir that became the standard farming unit in Tsarist times. Private property didn’t exist in full in Russia until 2001. So when people talk about Russia in the 1990′s as “adapting to Capitalism for the first time”, they’re not talking about “for the first time since 1917.” They mean, quite literally, that Russia transitioned from feudal slavery to Communism, with a minor break to a hybrid Feudalistic-Capitalistic system that existed for roughly 40 years.
This is factually incorrect. The idea of owning serfs was true but not since 1861 when Alexander II freed them. The part of the Tsar owning all of the land is also incorrec and was forver going back to the powerful boyers who were at one time very powerful and obviously controlled their own properties. My own family had estates in several provinces, my great grandfather's estate having been purchased by him shortly before the war (he was a younger son so would not have inherited his father's). Likewise there were corporate interests that owned factories and other businesses. This goes back to at least Peter the Great.

The whole deal with the kulaks was that they were peasants who owned their own land.

The state was ususally corrupt, overly powerful and overly centralized and owned a buch of stuff they had no business in, but saying that there there was no private property in Tsarist Russia is just wrong.
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Jered »

I just won a Barrett M82A1 in .50 BMG on gunbroker.

*laughs in Freedom*
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
User avatar
First Shirt
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:32 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by First Shirt »

Apparently the "3 boxes per customer" rule for .22 LR at Walmart has gone away. I bought 4 boxes of Federal Auto-Match for $16.99 per 325-round box. Just over a nickle per round, and no limit.
But there ain't many troubles that a man caint fix, with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six."
Lindy Cooper Wisdom
User avatar
Odahi
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:21 am

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Odahi »

Today has been interesting. I took the day off work, and had my knees x-rayed. I've had some pain in the right one from time to time, sort of like there was a little heat and light at Nagasaki. Then it started happening in the right knee too. My guess is the x-rays will look like the inside of a bag of gravel and broken glass. On the plus side, the radiology tech was a very attractive woman, tall and slender, with long auburn hair. "The name of the place is, I Like It Like That."
Birds gotta swim, fish gotta fly, assholes gotta ass, until the day they die.

"Common sense" is an oxymoron.
BDK
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by BDK »

Vonz: Did the Kulaks actually have a freehold, or just a tenancy?

Were there corporations, etc owned by people other than the aristocracy?

I realize there had to be some form of property rights, as the courts of Peter I, and Catherine attracted people from all over Europe.
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Vonz90 »

BDK wrote:Vonz: Did the Kulaks actually have a freehold, or just a tenancy?

Were there corporations, etc owned by people other than the aristocracy?

I realize there had to be some form of property rights, as the courts of Peter I, and Catherine attracted people from all over Europe.
Yes, and yes. Even American and European companies owned factories etc. in Czarist Russia.

http://www.singersewinginfo.co.uk/podolsk/
User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Jericho941 »

Vonz90 wrote:
Jericho941 wrote:
Something a lot of Americans don’t realize when talking about Russia is that they’ve never had a conception of private property. In Tsarist times, all the property in the Empire belonged, personally to the Tsar, who would distribute it as he or she saw fit. The nobility’s money was measured not in land, but in souls. The Russian peasantry, going back to Prechristian times, ran communal farms known as mir that became the standard farming unit in Tsarist times. Private property didn’t exist in full in Russia until 2001. So when people talk about Russia in the 1990′s as “adapting to Capitalism for the first time”, they’re not talking about “for the first time since 1917.” They mean, quite literally, that Russia transitioned from feudal slavery to Communism, with a minor break to a hybrid Feudalistic-Capitalistic system that existed for roughly 40 years.
This is factually incorrect. The idea of owning serfs was true but not since 1861 when Alexander II freed them. The part of the Tsar owning all of the land is also incorrec and was forver going back to the powerful boyers who were at one time very powerful and obviously controlled their own properties. My own family had estates in several provinces, my great grandfather's estate having been purchased by him shortly before the war (he was a younger son so would not have inherited his father's). Likewise there were corporate interests that owned factories and other businesses. This goes back to at least Peter the Great.

The whole deal with the kulaks was that they were peasants who owned their own land.

The state was ususally corrupt, overly powerful and overly centralized and owned a buch of stuff they had no business in, but saying that there there was no private property in Tsarist Russia is just wrong.
My understanding is that Kulaks are what the guy was talking about with the "hybrid Feudalistic-Capitalistic system that existed for roughly 40 years" and that boyars owned the facilities, but not the land they were on. They didn't have the power of European aristocracy.
Post Reply