Well… There was this thing called Soviet Union. They decided to try to speed up the transition to communism by using repression and violence. And ended up being a totalitarian state, a direct opposite of what a communist state is supposed to be like.
Of course you can argue that Soviet Union was not communist, it was just a state that had chosen to call itself communist for propaganda reasons… But still, Soviet Union is an example of a communist country that was unsuccessful as a communist project already by itself. Then came outsiders and helped make it even worse, but bad doesn’t become good by some people wanting it to be even worse.
Burma is another example. I’d say they hacked away their own leg before anyone else, such as CIA, had time to interfere in their business.
Finland decreased its poverty between 1917 and 1991 more than Soviet Union did. In the beginning of year 1917 Finland was a part of the Russian Empire, so we were extremely poor here as well. Soviet Union could be on the second place, perhaps. But, since there is at least one country that fared better, the claim you made it evidently false. There can very well be other countries than just Finland that decreased poverty more than USSR did. I do not know for sure, though, as I’m not terribly well aware of how faraway places like Chile or Burma were faring in 1917.
It’s not a good fix, it’s not a long-term fix, but in the short term you can claim to have lowered poverty by getting rid of a lot of mouths you’d otherwise need to feed.
The USSR had to deal with a civil war, rising up during WWI and being sabotaged by the Germans, more civil war, foreign meddling, and all while being the first successful communist revolution. Yet they still managed to raise literacy, raise health outcomes, raise average life expectancy, gender equality, science and technology, end the cycle of famines (after the first one or two they had when they were still building up), had faster growth during that period than any capitalist country (except maybe the US, which was doing imperialism at the time and the biggest hegemon), all while helping sustain other socialist countries, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Yup, it would have been difficult not to get better at those after things were as bad as they were. It might be that the Soviet system did actually get some things right, just like the damn nazis managed to build a decent Autobahn network, designed Volkswagen and built some very useful underground train lines in Berlin. If you are a totalitarian country with concentration camps, you are not okay as a country, not even if you do some good things.
Soviet Union was a prison of its peoples and a murderous regime. A country exists for its citizens (or inhabitants, if you prefer that), but in Soviet Union the citizens existed for the country – meaning that the country did not fulfil a country’s main reason of existence.
Of course, if you want to compare growth against non-socialist countries, you need to choose one where the starting point was as abysmal as that of the Imperial Russia. Probably Finland is a good comparison, because when it became independent from the Russia in 1917, it was obviously about as developed as the Russia was.
So, if Finland was doing its job as an organized society better in 1991 than Soviet Union was, then there we’ve got a country that grew to a better result from the same starting point. If Soviet Union of 1991 was a better place for its people than Finland for its people as of 1991, then probably the Soviet way was better. From what I heard from my relatives who visited Soviet Union around the change of 1980’s to 1990’s, they seemed to consider Finland more successful. You can of course point some other country where the starting point was as bad as the socioeconomical state of the Imperial Russia in 1914, and we can look at that. But, the comparison Finland vs. USSR 1917–1991 does not look terribly good for USSR, all that frankly. A part of the Russian Empire broke away and did not become socialist. It ended up faring much better than the rest of areas that were under Russian rule. Why, if not because of avoiding Socialism?
Comparing the Nazis to the Communists is a form of Nazi Apologia, originating with Double Genocide Theory. The truth is that they are in no way comparable, read Blackshirts and Reds..
The Soviet Union existed for the workers. They doubled life expectancy, over tripled literacy rates to 99.9% from the low 30s, dramatically reduced wealth inequality, provided free and high quality healthcare and education, and democratized the economy.
Comparing Finland to the USSR is… odd. Finland funds its safety nets through Imperialism. The Soviet Union was also far larger and far more populous, and yet cared for its people while detached from much of the global economy. The Soviets did 80% of the combat against the Nazis and had half their buildings destroyed and 20 million people killed by the Nazis, while Finland saw no such comparable devastation. The Soviets largely rebuilt on their own, while Western countries had an unscathed United States propping them up. The point is that Finland didn’t accomplish any of this on their own, and moreover a lot of these concessions came to prevent revolution like was seen in Russia.
The USSR didn’t “do repression and violence to speed up Communism,” they had a successful revolution and established Socialism. By all accounts it was quite successful overall, but we can learn from where they erred and adapt for the future.
The only ones who believe the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist are generally Western Trots or liberals/Anarchists who already don’t want the form of society Marxists want, which is a government that publicly owns its large and key industries and gradually folds in the new firms that grow to that level until the entire economy is publicly owned.
No, the Mensheviks had a poor understanding of Historical Materialism and didn’t think the Peasantry could truly be allied to the Proletariat. What I am describing is what the Bolsheviks did. To a better extent the PRC also fulfills this.
I don’t think reeducation camps should be considered “concentration camps,” which brings to mind the mass killings of the Holocaust, but regardless the reeducation program is pretty much complete.
As far as can be considered a successful country, the PRC absolutely fits that. Conditions for the people are rapidly improving, the economy when adjusted for purchasing power parity is the largest in the world, it’s a world leader in renewable energy, and is overtaking the rest of the world in key metrics.
When people ask me what communist country was successful I usually say all of them until cia decided to go there and spread freedom 🇺🇸🦅
This guy has never lived in any communist country.
Yeah kinda hard to do so when a world power decides to end your country.
Well… There was this thing called Soviet Union. They decided to try to speed up the transition to communism by using repression and violence. And ended up being a totalitarian state, a direct opposite of what a communist state is supposed to be like.
Of course you can argue that Soviet Union was not communist, it was just a state that had chosen to call itself communist for propaganda reasons… But still, Soviet Union is an example of a communist country that was unsuccessful as a communist project already by itself. Then came outsiders and helped make it even worse, but bad doesn’t become good by some people wanting it to be even worse. Burma is another example. I’d say they hacked away their own leg before anyone else, such as CIA, had time to interfere in their business.
The USSR is responsible for the largest decrease in poverty in all of world history
Finland decreased its poverty between 1917 and 1991 more than Soviet Union did. In the beginning of year 1917 Finland was a part of the Russian Empire, so we were extremely poor here as well. Soviet Union could be on the second place, perhaps. But, since there is at least one country that fared better, the claim you made it evidently false. There can very well be other countries than just Finland that decreased poverty more than USSR did. I do not know for sure, though, as I’m not terribly well aware of how faraway places like Chile or Burma were faring in 1917.
It turns out that if you kill tens of millions of Ukrainians, the remaining USSR population gets less poor!
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
How very Malthusian of you to think killing poor people lowers poverty.
1 apple, 2 people, 1/2 apple per person.
1 apple, 1 person, 1 apple per person.
It’s not a good fix, it’s not a long-term fix, but in the short term you can claim to have lowered poverty by getting rid of a lot of mouths you’d otherwise need to feed.
The USSR had to deal with a civil war, rising up during WWI and being sabotaged by the Germans, more civil war, foreign meddling, and all while being the first successful communist revolution. Yet they still managed to raise literacy, raise health outcomes, raise average life expectancy, gender equality, science and technology, end the cycle of famines (after the first one or two they had when they were still building up), had faster growth during that period than any capitalist country (except maybe the US, which was doing imperialism at the time and the biggest hegemon), all while helping sustain other socialist countries, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Yup, it would have been difficult not to get better at those after things were as bad as they were. It might be that the Soviet system did actually get some things right, just like the damn nazis managed to build a decent Autobahn network, designed Volkswagen and built some very useful underground train lines in Berlin. If you are a totalitarian country with concentration camps, you are not okay as a country, not even if you do some good things.
Soviet Union was a prison of its peoples and a murderous regime. A country exists for its citizens (or inhabitants, if you prefer that), but in Soviet Union the citizens existed for the country – meaning that the country did not fulfil a country’s main reason of existence.
Of course, if you want to compare growth against non-socialist countries, you need to choose one where the starting point was as abysmal as that of the Imperial Russia. Probably Finland is a good comparison, because when it became independent from the Russia in 1917, it was obviously about as developed as the Russia was.
So, if Finland was doing its job as an organized society better in 1991 than Soviet Union was, then there we’ve got a country that grew to a better result from the same starting point. If Soviet Union of 1991 was a better place for its people than Finland for its people as of 1991, then probably the Soviet way was better. From what I heard from my relatives who visited Soviet Union around the change of 1980’s to 1990’s, they seemed to consider Finland more successful. You can of course point some other country where the starting point was as bad as the socioeconomical state of the Imperial Russia in 1914, and we can look at that. But, the comparison Finland vs. USSR 1917–1991 does not look terribly good for USSR, all that frankly. A part of the Russian Empire broke away and did not become socialist. It ended up faring much better than the rest of areas that were under Russian rule. Why, if not because of avoiding Socialism?
Comparing the Nazis to the Communists is a form of Nazi Apologia, originating with Double Genocide Theory. The truth is that they are in no way comparable, read Blackshirts and Reds..
The Soviet Union existed for the workers. They doubled life expectancy, over tripled literacy rates to 99.9% from the low 30s, dramatically reduced wealth inequality, provided free and high quality healthcare and education, and democratized the economy.
Comparing Finland to the USSR is… odd. Finland funds its safety nets through Imperialism. The Soviet Union was also far larger and far more populous, and yet cared for its people while detached from much of the global economy. The Soviets did 80% of the combat against the Nazis and had half their buildings destroyed and 20 million people killed by the Nazis, while Finland saw no such comparable devastation. The Soviets largely rebuilt on their own, while Western countries had an unscathed United States propping them up. The point is that Finland didn’t accomplish any of this on their own, and moreover a lot of these concessions came to prevent revolution like was seen in Russia.
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds.
Removed by mod
What no theory does to an mf
Removed by mod
Maybe don’t brag about your ignorance publicly and keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about?
What a rude thing to say, they are so very well versed and so very knowledgeable, they learned it in school today.
The USSR didn’t “do repression and violence to speed up Communism,” they had a successful revolution and established Socialism. By all accounts it was quite successful overall, but we can learn from where they erred and adapt for the future.
The only ones who believe the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist are generally Western Trots or liberals/Anarchists who already don’t want the form of society Marxists want, which is a government that publicly owns its large and key industries and gradually folds in the new firms that grow to that level until the entire economy is publicly owned.
Have you never heard of bolševiks and menševiks? What you’re explaining is what menševiks wanted, but what happened was what bolševiks aimed for.
And that was inhumane horror.
No, the Mensheviks had a poor understanding of Historical Materialism and didn’t think the Peasantry could truly be allied to the Proletariat. What I am describing is what the Bolsheviks did. To a better extent the PRC also fulfills this.
PRC has concentration camps. Not a sign of a succesfull society, all that frankly.
I don’t think reeducation camps should be considered “concentration camps,” which brings to mind the mass killings of the Holocaust, but regardless the reeducation program is pretty much complete.
As far as can be considered a successful country, the PRC absolutely fits that. Conditions for the people are rapidly improving, the economy when adjusted for purchasing power parity is the largest in the world, it’s a world leader in renewable energy, and is overtaking the rest of the world in key metrics.
Least smug shitlib
Removed by mod
Motherfucker what was the Vietnam War?