volodya_ilich @ volodya_ilich @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

543

Joined

1 yr. ago

Don't worry, western Europe is doing its thing. It's electing fascists like Putin to create even more such wars. It's the preferred alternative to Socialism for neoliberals, conservatives and social-democrats anyway

You missed the part in between where they made a deal with the nazis

I didn't miss that part because there was no "deal with Nazis". Nothing as bad as the Munich Agreement signed the previous year by England, France and Germany among others, allowing Hitler to occupy the Sudetenland, a land with more than 3mn people in Czechoslovakia (to whom the Soviet Union offered assistance but Romania and Poland denied pass to Soviet troops, possibly influenced by the fact that Poland also did a grab of land of Czechoslovakia). The USSR spent the entire 30s trying to push for a military alliance with England, France and Poland to stop Nazism, but they all refused because a good liberal would rather have Nazis first exterminate communists. Stalin went as far as offering to station 1 million troops, together with aviation and artillery, in France, in case Stalin invaded, to which England and France refused. Feel free to study the so-called "collective security policy" pushed by the USSR in Europe against Nazism.

The Soviet Union had been in a civil war until 1921 (right after a devastating WW1/, and before that it was a preindustrial nation. It had a whopping 19 years to rebuild the country from scratch and to industrialise, compared to the 100+ years of German industrialization. They desperately needed every single year of industrialization they could get in order to gain some advantage against the industrially superior Nazis, as evidenced by the 25+ million casualties the USSR suffered against the Nazis despite material help from the US. Making an agreement to postpone the war after every country in Europe refuses to enter a military alliance against Nazis just because you're a communist country, is just the logical action to defend your citizens.

Please stop pushing revisionist nazi propaganda. Without the USSR, the slavic population of Europe, including Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian, as well as many other ethnic groups, would have been genocided in vastly superior numbers than they were.

What are you trying to say with this graph? That distribution of wealth is better when it is distributed amongst less than 1% of the population of they call themselves proletarian?

You haven't interpreted the graphs correctly. That the share of the top 1% got reduced during USSR times is what the graph is showing, and it was much greater before and it's much greater after. The remaining population had a bigger share of the total wealth of the country during socialism than they did before or than they do after. Please re-read the graphs.

Or that it is somehow better if standard of living goes down for everyone just because the then nonexistent ressources are shared equally?

But that's not what happened, and you would know if you had read about the topic before making claims out of your ass. The wealth of the USSR and its citizens grew MASSIVELY during its existence. The country went from a preindustrial, almost feudal backwater, with 80+% of population being farmers working the fields with manual labor, to the second world power. The gains in living quality for citizens were absolutely massive. Free healthcare, education and public retirement pensions for everyone, millions of living units were built yearly, and were rented to families for an average of 3-5% of their income making homeless disappear, everyone was guaranteed to have a job available if they wanted to work with the average time to finding a job being 2 weeks, real consumption rose, during the worst years, at a rate of 3% per year... If you really want to study the evolution of soviet quality of life, I recommend you the book "Human Rights in the Soviet Union", by Albert Szymanski. Please, refrain from making false claims about the material living conditions in other countries that you patiently haven't made any effort to inform yourself about.

If you're saying this ironically because you think Putin is a communist, you're extremely misguided about the current political situation in Russia.

If you're endorsing communism, based

People will probably say hexbear or .ml, but I've been browsing hexbear lately and haven't seen any of that. In fact today I saw a post bringing attention to this particular topic (Russian gvt cracking down against "childfree lifestyle")

If by "joined WW2", do you mean "got refused from any military alliances with England, France and Poland despite a decade of trying in an attempt to unify Europe against Hitler"? Or do you mean "getting invaded by the Nazis and losing 25+mn people in the process of eliminating Nazism from Europe"?

Think harder. I'm not "moving goalposts", I'm saying, if life in the countryside was so bad during soviet times, why are people from the countryside moving out now and not before... You said "tell that to the people living on the countryside", the reality is that the people in the countryside were forced to leave the countryside after communism. So why don't you go ask them?

Nah seriously, look up the role of the IMF in the "restructuring" of the Russian economy. And look up the social and economic consequences

How long did it last in the Weimar Republic (whose ideology you failed to mention btw). And when was it implemented in the rest of Europe.

But yeah for how long will our glorious liberal democracies have affordable healthcare and pensions, we've done nothing but degrade them for the past 30 years because apparently doing better is communism

No, it didn't "fail" by any historical account. If you look up even on Wikipedia, which has an extremely western bias, you'll see that the article is called , "dissolution" of the USSR, not failure or crumbling or whatever revisionist word of the day you wanna choose. The USSR was booming, it enjoyed overwhelming legitimacy in the vast majority of its republics (with some notable exceptions in the Baltics mostly) as proven by the soviet referendum to maintain the USSR, and it was only dissolved from the top down by a few party members, not a failure or crumbling by any means. The 90s crisis wasn't created by socialism, it was created by the newly formed capitalist government which auctioned the country to the most corrupt bidder and created the russian oligarchy that we all hate now. It was literally directed by western institutions like the International Monetary Fund and economists from MIT, you can feel free to study this subject in the slightest if you're interested and you'll see that what I'm saying is right (clearly you haven't done so before).

Data says otherwise. Since the end of the soviet block, there's been a massive migration outwards from the countryside in favour of urban life all over the former socialist republics. Maybe the idea of subsidizing the infrastructure of the countryside despite it not making sense within capitalism wasn't such a bad idea after all... Please, try to respond to that: why are people flocking from the degrading countryside in post soviet countries

And how much did they expand in Europe and how long did they last? Anyway, nice that you can only respond to that point

ROFL, the consumer index that your first source portrays, is still twice that of Canada at 86 points Vs 45, and Germany's consumer index is -15 points... It's on par with Australia and Spain, so what does that tell you?

The rest aren't really indicators of Chinese people seeing the economy struggling aren't they? They're just western reports predicting the imminent collapse of the Chinese economy... as they've been doing for the past 20 years

It turned a backwater pre-capitalist empire where 80% of the population were poor farmers, into the second world power in unprecedentedly quick industrialization and development, defeated the Nazis and prevented their extermination of the Slavic people including Poles and Ukrainians, it guaranteed rights to women and to national minorities like Kazakh, Uzbeki, Georgians, Armenians, it established for the first time in history concepts like socialized healthcare and pensions for every citizen which western Europe later emulated... After being dismantled, of which it's been 33 years, Russia still hasn't recovered the GDP per capita of the USSR, so what does that tell you about how well liberalism is working in Russia?

And access to transport was widely available to the overwhelming majority of the population through trains, trams, buses and trolleybuses. Even if your American mind can't comprehend this fact, owning a car isn't the ultimate form of mobility, there are alternatives that are arguably better. City design was centered around walkability, density and public transit; metro systems were luxurious and a predicament all out of themselves, and housing being generally obtained through the worker's union implied that workers usually lived in relative proximity to their workplaces.

The soviet economy was a developing, centrally planned economy, not running under the premise of overproduction and surplus but running under the premise of 5-year plans of production. There was full employment, and almost complete usage of the raw materials extracted and industrial goods produced. Making twice as many cars, implied removing all of that labor and those resources from another sector of the economy. When the premise isn't to "make money selling cars to rich people", but to "grant adequate material conditions and welfare to every citizen", you have to make decisions like that. More cars could have implied, for example, fewer hospital beds or fewer trams, but my point is that making more private cars would have NECESSARILY meant making less of something else of which there's also no surplus (because the premise of the USSR was the non-existence of surplus). It's very easy to have surpluses in a capitalist economy when you don't care about 80% of the population not having access to the goods and services available, when you want everyone to have access it's a different story.

For the last time, I'm not the ultimate supporter of themselves Chinese model of Communism, now that I've shown you that your position stems from being uneducated about socialism, its meaning, and its history, you resort to "how many gazillionaires" because you're not trying to have a civilised discussion. You have a preconceived notion that "China isn't communism", which is fine, so do I, but when confronted with the discrepancies within the communist movement and how there are legitimate arguments to call it socialist and on the way to communism, you just spout your initial position again with stronger words. I'll tell you what I said at the beginning: I don't care whether it's communist or not, but you saying "hurr durr no socialism if billionaires" is a shitty argument from ignorance.

especially the Chinese

Source?

The sentiment about work, investment, economic prospects, consumption are all quite bad

Source?

My brother in Christ, Mensheviks and Dengists were against the consolidation of centralised socialist economy before the historical consolidation of capital in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the difference being that Menshevism died off and Dengism ended up taking the lead after Maoism. The restoration of capital is simply a consequence of Dengism taking over AFTER Maoism, not because Dengists believed there should be first Maoism and then Dengism.