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.
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?
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 bette extent the PRC also fulfills this.
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!
How very Malthusian of you to think killing poor people lowers poverty.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
And funnily enough the same can be said of Venezuela (though that’s just another corrupt LatAm dictatorship masquerading in “lefty” clothing)
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?
Maybe don’t brag about your ignorance publicly and keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about?
What no theory does to an mf
Removed by mod
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.
Least smug shitlib
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 bette extent the PRC also fulfills this.
PRC has concentration camps. Not a sign of a succesfull society, all that frankly.
Communist Vietnam was controlled by CIA? Wow
Motherfucker what was the Vietnam War?