• TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    192·
    2 days ago

    That is in fact very obviously true. If they hadn’t developed their economy far faster than any other society in history, they couldn’t possibly have produced enough food and war materiel to defeat the Nazis, which I hope we can agree was an extremely important thing for the Soviets to be able to do.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
      43·
      2 days ago

      The revolution which was betrayed by the bolsheviks in its infancy would have achieved the same results and not devolved into an authoritarian dystopia in the process.

      • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        202·
        2 days ago

        “A type of economic success achieved multiple times under “the tankies” and under literally nobody else would definitely have been achieved under the liberal government that the October revolution overthrew” is too farfetched and historically unfounded to even make a good historical fiction what if novel.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
          41·
          2 days ago

          Funny how you still sound like the liberals who talk about the economic success of liberal capitalist revolutions based on cherry-picked metrics. Much like they ignore the imperialism and exploitation which powered those results, so do you ignore the exploitation and oppression that powered yours. Both are insufficient by anarchist standards and therefore we criticize them instead of having a naive deterministic view that this is the only way it could have happened.

          But I’m sure you don’t get it again, so I doubt I’ll try to explain it once again after you reply with some delusions about the grandeur of the USSR.