And after looking into it, we find that the Soviets never really achieved communism in anything but name. Once again, like the feudal state they rebelled against before, it was rule by dictatorship, and rations for the people. They just couldn’t give up the idea of a strongman. The people by no means ever owned the means of production in the USSR. Of course, we can never confirm that communism is inherently untenable from their example. The capitalist nations were no help at all, and forced the Soviets to waste resources on a strong military. But even despite their failings, communism was still the best thing to ever happen to Russia. Unfortunately, Russia was also the worst thing that ever happened to communism.
People who love arguing socialist states fail love to ignore that the reasons are 95% economic interference and outright military intervention or coups from capitalist countries.
Outright military interventions and coups are part of the package called the real world.
Anyway, I would replace “capitalist” with “bandit” here. Because “capitalism” is just as square-abstract as “communism”, while IRL just as vulnerable to those.
See, there’s an important thing called “feedback”. If there’s no feedback from you, your life doesn’t matter and you get stomped upon.
60s-70s USSR had very weak feedback mechanisms, but still surprisingly better than today’s Russia. Some things that people just accept today would cause real protests there. Half the ministries would be paralyzed by people saying that following such a policy is against their conscience. I really believe that, yes.
But then, due to its slow collapse and decay, those feedbacks becoming stronger started pushing for change that would deprive the ruling class - KGB and similar or related people, bureaucrats and relatives, anyway, the real structures usually don’t have names, - of power. That’s when that class hijacked the popular movement from the likes of Sakharov or Starovoitova and created modern post-Soviet states.
Which means that it had blind zones with no feedbacks said class used. And the more centralist-bureaucratic and non-transparent a state is, the more blind zones it has.
Anything that takes the power from being distributed between separate people and assembles it into one Moloch, calling it “power of the people”, controlled by hell knows whom, means that those people who actually have principles will get stomped.
As we can see, though, same things happen in countries very far from being “communist” or “socialist”.
Not arguing anything with you stranger. I know what we’re told in the states, but I don’t think things are quite what we’re told they are.
Just want to share this declassified documents straight from cia’s website. The first little blurb says Stalin wasn’t really a dictator. Do with that what you will. ✌️
Also the USSR was a socialisy state, not communist. Communism is a stateless society by definition. The word socialist is literally one of the s’s in USSR.
Stalin wasn’t a dictator in the sense that he didn’t have absolute power, but in the sense that everyone at the top agreed dissenters belong in slave camps he was absolutely the head of state of an authoritarian system, which most folks are happy to call a dictator.
It was not a feudal state. It was roughly similar to post-slavery South in the USA.
Yes, I already wrote they didn’t “achieve communism”. It’s the point of my text that they were promising it in the future in exchange for loyalty to a weird system in the present.
Sorry, wrong comment.
and forced the Soviets to waste resources on a strong military.
Oh, so it’s “the capitalist nations”, not the way Soviet system worked, made this so expensive?
But even despite their failings, communism was still the best thing to ever happen to Russia.
Stolypin and Witte are generally considered something much, much better. The closest it came to a normal society with civilization potential.
Unfortunately, Russia was also the worst thing that ever happened to communism.
One could argue Khmer Rouge were that, but IRL communists’ incredible ability to just pretend it didn’t happen makes USSR the most notable example.
And after looking into it, we find that the Soviets never really achieved communism in anything but name. Once again, like the feudal state they rebelled against before, it was rule by dictatorship, and rations for the people. They just couldn’t give up the idea of a strongman. The people by no means ever owned the means of production in the USSR. Of course, we can never confirm that communism is inherently untenable from their example. The capitalist nations were no help at all, and forced the Soviets to waste resources on a strong military. But even despite their failings, communism was still the best thing to ever happen to Russia. Unfortunately, Russia was also the worst thing that ever happened to communism.
People who love arguing socialist states fail love to ignore that the reasons are 95% economic interference and outright military intervention or coups from capitalist countries.
The guy who answered you is actually right.
Outright military interventions and coups are part of the package called the real world.
Anyway, I would replace “capitalist” with “bandit” here. Because “capitalism” is just as square-abstract as “communism”, while IRL just as vulnerable to those.
See, there’s an important thing called “feedback”. If there’s no feedback from you, your life doesn’t matter and you get stomped upon.
60s-70s USSR had very weak feedback mechanisms, but still surprisingly better than today’s Russia. Some things that people just accept today would cause real protests there. Half the ministries would be paralyzed by people saying that following such a policy is against their conscience. I really believe that, yes.
But then, due to its slow collapse and decay, those feedbacks becoming stronger started pushing for change that would deprive the ruling class - KGB and similar or related people, bureaucrats and relatives, anyway, the real structures usually don’t have names, - of power. That’s when that class hijacked the popular movement from the likes of Sakharov or Starovoitova and created modern post-Soviet states.
Which means that it had blind zones with no feedbacks said class used. And the more centralist-bureaucratic and non-transparent a state is, the more blind zones it has.
Anything that takes the power from being distributed between separate people and assembles it into one Moloch, calling it “power of the people”, controlled by hell knows whom, means that those people who actually have principles will get stomped.
As we can see, though, same things happen in countries very far from being “communist” or “socialist”.
So, it doesn’t work?
Edit: Lol angry tankies incoming.
Does democracy not work because Athens lost a war to Sparta?
We dont have Greek democracy any more. We have the modern version.
Don’t think about that too hard.
We don’t have Soviet communism anymore either. Perhaps it’s time to try a modern version.
We don’t have nazism any more either, let those dictator fueled murder rampages rest.
Well, nobody in their right mind has been calling them good.
So i can come deflate your tires every night and tell everybody you’re a loser who doesn’t even know how to fill a tire then?
If you knew how to take care of your car the tires wouldn’t be flat every morning. 🤷♂️
The result is that either you deal with the problem successfully, or you’ll be having flat tires every morning.
Is that so hard to understand?
Amazing…
Removed by mod
Don’t even know if \s or tankie talk…
Not arguing anything with you stranger. I know what we’re told in the states, but I don’t think things are quite what we’re told they are.
Just want to share this declassified documents straight from cia’s website. The first little blurb says Stalin wasn’t really a dictator. Do with that what you will. ✌️
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Also the USSR was a socialisy state, not communist. Communism is a stateless society by definition. The word socialist is literally one of the s’s in USSR.
Stalin wasn’t a dictator in the sense that he didn’t have absolute power, but in the sense that everyone at the top agreed dissenters belong in slave camps he was absolutely the head of state of an authoritarian system, which most folks are happy to call a dictator.
It was not a feudal state. It was roughly similar to post-slavery South in the USA.
Yes, I already wrote they didn’t “achieve communism”. It’s the point of my text that they were promising it in the future in exchange for loyalty to a weird system in the present.Sorry, wrong comment.
Oh, so it’s “the capitalist nations”, not the way Soviet system worked, made this so expensive?
Stolypin and Witte are generally considered something much, much better. The closest it came to a normal society with civilization potential.
One could argue Khmer Rouge were that, but IRL communists’ incredible ability to just pretend it didn’t happen makes USSR the most notable example.