A collection of color photos of Russia taken between 1909 and 1912, including a few shots of Russian industry. Just found it breathtaking and thought to share it.
Wow, that’s beautiful. Thank you for sharing this.
From the same collection: http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2009/10/21/color-photography-from-russian-in-the-early-1900s/
Truly amazing!
Those photos of the peasants, especially the children make me wonder how many of them were starved out by the Communists when the farms were collectivized. They look happy, independent, well fed, and well clothed. All of it was destroyed by collectivism.
jdp,
well, lets not get carried away. according to one of the links above, those photos were also commissioned by the czar. so i am not surprised life looks sweet and happy. how many photos and artwork commissioned by the communist party in Russia showed life under their rule as also being ideal?
just because life sucked for most people under communism, doesn’t mean it didn’t also suck under the czar. 
but over all these are some really terrific photos. i wonder if this technique was utilized by anyone else at the turn of the century?
Ah ok I didn’t read the paragraph at the top of the page. I guess I got sucked into the beautiful pictures too much to read!
So now you’re defending communism!?
As for the technique, I don’t know off-hand of any other old photos that used it, but I have seen the process demonstrated. What’s interesting is that you really only need two pictures/filters to get pretty good color information.
Very beautiful pictures. Nitpick: many of those picks were not taken in Russia but the Russian Empire (ex: Georgia). That said, that general area is close to the top of my #1 places to visit list.
Why was communism such a stunning success?? I don’t mean the economic theory, of course, but the meme. Why did it spread so rapidly and take root so deeply? I don’t accept the “the masses are stupid and envious” theory because it’s too glib… anyone, even really stupid people, can understand the incentives problem. Even with the mountains of empirical data confirming economic theory (that communism is unworkable) generated by the blood and tears of millions of innocent people, why are people still so amenable to communistic ideas and attitudes?
There must be something inimical to human nature that makes us excellent memetic receptacles for these kind of ideas.
Clayton -
Why was communism such a stunning success?
Because it appeals to sociobiology and popular tropes.
Communists are brilliant tacticians when it comes to seizing power. That is it.
They nurture extreme party discipline and unity of action. Als they are totally unscrupulous and will cooperate with anyone if they feel it will bring them closer to power.
And that was enough in many cases.
In Russia the Social Revolutionaries with their natively developed brand of agrarian socialism were infinitely more popular than the Communists capturing the loyalties of millions of peasants. However they were reckless, pluralistic and penetrated by tsarist agents and informers. They also refused to have anything to do with the Germans while their country was still at war with it. So despite their popular appeal they were at a disadvantage.
Their problem was that they were the better people. Eg they were bold and pro-active and put their money where their mouth was and therefore favored individual terrorism, meaning personal self-sacrifice. Where the Communists in contrast prefered the safety of “mass action” where the small folk would be directed to charge the barricades while they led from behind, hiding in some safe house or even exile.
The morale of the story is that in a skirmish for government power the most despicable people win.
Communists are brilliant tacticians when it comes to seizing power. That is it.
The reason their tactics and propaganda work is because it appeals to normal human sentiments and social climbing efforts.
‘Mind your own business’ and ‘when people go bankrupt it’s reality telling you you’re a screwup’ does not.
Propaganda is a necessary requirement. But Communists did not have a monopoly on effective propaganda. As mentioned the SRs were more effective at it. What set the Communists apart from the bunch were the tactics. Leninist party organisation. A centralised party with a small cadre of totally unscroupolus professional revolutionaries at the top.
Eg, the Bolshevik press during the First World War was funded by Imperial Germany. So it was their tactical move to collaborate with the Germans - something no other rival party would have consented to - that allowed them to even dissimenate propaganda in the first place.
just in case anyone is interested, here are some nifty pre-WW2 US color photos.
I’d imagine it’s because it’s one of the “ultimate” Statist thoughts of “If I have the guns and control, I can fix everythiiiiing!”. It promises some supposed absolute paradise, in exchange for blood and death.
That’s a large part of why Communism always manages to hold that “18 year old” or so ballpark. It’s been especially easy to do so in the past century, considering the fact people can be considered “Children” up to age 40(!). The collectivist aspect appeals to the women, and the very fact that coercion and violence is “necessary in implementation” appeals to the testosterone-infused savage males that support it.