a lot of communism fails because leaders become corrupt and the wealth still gets funneled to the few
This is literally empirically false. Wealth inequality in, say, the USSR, plummeted to the lowest levels the region has ever seen. The top 1% in the USSR only had 4% of the total income, in modern capitalist Russia this number has risen at least to 20%. The top earners in the USSR were also not “le evil bureaucrat politicians”, but university professors, artists, and other members of the intelligentsia. Income inequality actually evolved downwards during the existence of the country. Your analysis is not based on real data, it’s based off vibes you’ve gotten from CIA propaganda.
a utopia of any sort simply isn’t going to happen
I agree, but us communists are not utopians. Utopian socialism died in the mid 1800s, and Marx and Engels famously talked about Scientific Socialism as opposed to Utopian Socialism. The debate has been settled for almost 200 years: Marxists are not utopians.
The top 1% in the USSR only had 4% of the total income, in modern capitalist Russia this number has risen at least to 20%.
You’re commiting a type of McNamara fallacy here by accounting for financial income and ignoring the ability of people in charge of a command economy to, well… command.
If you are in charge of people, you don’t need to pay for their services. You can command them to get things done. Imagine paying a company to asphalt 10 kilometres of road to your dacha. It would cost millions, but could be organised by most second-tier bureaucrats. Even now, Vladimir Putin doesn’t need money. He can ask for anything he wants and if some people die for that, it’s okay.
The top earners in the USSR were also not “le evil bureaucrat politicians”, but university professors, artists, and other members of the intelligentsia.
And yet, the intelligentsia often starved, because they had little to offer to the shadow economy. Even the people with thousands of roubles in their drawers had very little that money could buy, you could walk to a store with a full wallet and leave with nothing. And if it had anything, you would wait in a queue for several hours. People would queue up without knowing what they are waiting for.
It was far more important to have friends that can command some stuff your way. A cashier at a store or a cook at a cafeteria could get you the best food. A sailor could get you import magazines and electronics. A machine worker could get you tools and make you spare parts.
To a western person, this might seem obscene, but it’s how those economies have operated for decades and something people have to actively unlearn.
Ok, what you described with so many words is “corruption”. Corruption exists in any system, not specially in communism. Now you have the burden of providing numeric evidence that corruption was more widespread than it was in comparably developed countries at the time, and that it was big enough to generate differences in access to purchase power comparable to the ones we see nowadays.
It’s not just corruption when most people engage in it to some extent. You would literally see factory workers bring stuff from their work without hiding it en masse and nobody would get fired. And then you would trade or share stuff you stole with your friends who stole from their jobs. Try stealing stuff from your own job openly every day, see how well that goes.
Now you have the burden of providing numeric evidence
Yes, because there is an easy way to measure how much everything costs in a system where monetary value means next to nothing. How much would a sirloin steak cost if somebody offered it to you on the street? What if your friend gave it to you? What if no steaks were available at a grocery store? Would you trust any estimate of a price when money is mostly meaningless?
Asking about purchasing power is also meaningless, you either knew someone who could get you stuff or you didn’t. In a weird way, Soviet shadow economy ran like a prison: if you know a guy, you can get stuff, if you don’t, you make do what is given to you or lie, cheat and steal to get what you need.
Also, official statistics would lie and as the lies travelled upwards, they would stray further and further from the truth. So no reliable statistics are available or possible. But you take what numbers you can find, ignore any you can’t get, and claim that Soviet Union was somehow a paradise, thus commiting McNamara fallacy:
But when the McNamara discipline is applied too literally, the first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. The second step is to disregard that which can’t easily be measured or given a quantitative value. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t important. The fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured really doesn’t exist. This is suicide.
Damn, that’s a lotta words to say “I have no evidence to support my claim of inequality in the USSR”. Your entire analysis is vibes-based so it can be entirely disregarded.
It’s not just corruption when most people engage in it
So what is it, was it only the party leaders commanding everyone at their will creating huge inequality, or is it everyone engaging in it? Because the original claim was the former. If everyone engaged in it, it’s not a mechanism for inequality.
Yes, because there is an easy way to measure how much everything costs in a system where monetary value means next to nothing
Literally yes. You can measure so-called baskets and translate the goods and services to international prices. The fact that you can’t source up this data simply means you’re making it up, not that it’s not possible. If everyone had access to free healthcare, education to the highest level, housing costing 3% of the monthly income, there was no unemployment, and as you say a huge chunk of consumption was heavily subsidized, all of that points to inequality being low.
In capitalism, if you’re richer than your neighbor and you pay for a car they can’t afford, that’s legal and creates inequality. In Soviet communism, if you are owed a favor by an official and you get placed earlier on the list of car recipients, that’s illegal and it creates inequality. The entire point that you’re making, apparently, is that while in capitalism the mechanisms that lead to inequality of consumption are legal, in the USSR they were illegal. That’s not pointing in the direction you want it to point, and you’re only looking ridiculous because you’re clearly not speaking from data but from vibes.
Also, official statistics would lie and as the lies travelled upwards, they would stray further and further from the truth.
Unlike in capitalism, where companies deciding how to do their own accounting without external supervision are surely not lying to anyone (wink wink) that’s why we constantly have banking and financial crises because banks and companies constantly lie about everything and anything which leads to huge bubbles and bursts. Don’t be ridiculous. Just admit you’re going off vibes and let it go.
Don’t be ridiculous. Just admit you’re going off vibes and let it go.
I was born right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have experiences of my parents. I have experiences of my parents’ friends. I have experiences of my teachers.
If everyone engaged in it, it’s not a mechanism for inequality.
Yes it is, because some things are in higher demand than others. Cashiers and cooks were like gods that got the first picks and everyone else had to pick what’s left.
You can measure so-called baskets and translate the goods and services to international prices.
The “baskets” were mostly empty, the pantries were often full. Things such as mayonnaise and canned peas were highly sought after deficit goods that were hard to acquire.
If everyone had access to free healthcare,
Bribing the doctor was expected if you needed anything more than a checkup.
education to the highest level,
was only available to the best students, once again encouraging bribery.
housing costing 3% of the monthly income,
that you could hardly acquire, some people waited up to 30 years to be allowed to buy a flat and many lived in dorms with other people. I grew up sharing 67 square meter flat with 12 other people.
there was no unemployment,
because it was illegal, but firing someone was very difficult as well, encouraging laziness, theft and alcoholism in the workforce.
Also, the competition for prestigious positions was fierce and often skewed by the favour system as well. My mother-in-law’s math teacher gave her a bad grade because the in-laws’ cousin got a position the teacher wanted for herself, sabotaging my mother-in-law’s chances at a higher education as a result. My mother-in-law later became a cashier at a local store and never sold the teacher any under the counter goods. They are both still alive and still hate each other to this day.
and as you say a huge chunk of consumption was heavily subsidized, all of that points to inequality being low.
So was most of the production, because most factories would have collapsed without it. If it wasn’t for the oil fields in Siberia, Soviet Union would have collapsed much earlier.
Also, especially before Andropov, many factories produced things illegally just so they could buy things such as tools and machinery illegally. A nearby ship factory produced car trailers (a highly sought after deficit product) that they would sell for US dollars locally to buy other deficit goods needed for shipbuilding such as welding masks and gloves.
The entire point that you’re making, apparently, is that while in capitalism the mechanisms that lead to inequality of consumption are legal, in the USSR they were illegal. That’s not pointing in the direction you want it to point, and you’re only looking ridiculous because you’re clearly not speaking from data but from vibes.
They were technically illegal but seldom punished. In fact, making deals and trading favours was a way of life.
Unlike in capitalism, where companies deciding how to do their own accounting without external supervision are surely not lying to anyone
At least you have the state statistics department and independent organisation checking their claims. As per Wikipedia:
Studies of second, shadow, grey and other economies are difficult because unlike official economies there are no direct statistics, therefore indirect methods are required.[2] Treml and Alexeev studied the relationships between per capita legal money income and such income-dependent variables as per capita savings and purchases of various goods and services. The study indicated that the disparity between legal income and legal spending gradually grew during 1965–1989 and by the end of the period the correlation between the two almost disappeared, indicating the rapid growth of the second economy.[2] The proliferation of the second economy was impossible without widespread corruption.[4]
Ok ok, so all public sector = bribery, all private sector = meritocracy, got it buddy! Free healthcare is bad because sometimes you’ll need to pay your doctor to get something done (I thought money was worthless?), unlike in private healthcare where you always need to pay your doctor and so poor people can’t get healthcare, so good!
some people waited up to 30 years to be allowed to buy a flat
In capitalism most people can’t even afford to buy a flat, again you’re proving you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Home ownership rate is 98% in Kazakhstan, 96% in China and Laos, 92% in Russia and Serbia, 90% in Cuba, and in glorious capitalist countries it’s 69% EU average, 66% in the USA, 57% in South Korea, or 42% in Switzerland. You’re just a propagandized anticommunist with absolutely 0 empirical data to back up what you’re talking about, angry at communism because your life in capitalism was shit.
I was born right after the collapse of the Soviet Union
I grew up sharing 67 square meter flat with 12 other people
It sounds to me like you should blame capitalism. Out of those 12 other people, how many were unemployed adults who would have had a job in capitalism?
Your comment is full of anecdotes, but again you have 0 statistical data about what you’re saying. Literally all of that takes place in capitalism even worse, and I’m giving you data for it. Keep crying about communism while your Eastern European country becomes a fascist hellhole with destroyed infrastructure, fucked up healthcare, and massive migration towards the EU because people can’t find fucking jobs.
Ok ok, so all public sector = bribery, all private sector = meritocracy, got it buddy
I never said that. 2. In private sector, you at least know the prices.
(I thought money was worthless?
It was. You would mostly bribe people with stuff.
It sounds to me like you should blame capitalism. Out of those 12 other people, how many were unemployed adults who would have had a job in capitalism?
We inherited the living situation from the Soviet era. Gradually, other people moved out to their own places and we bought the rest of the flat from them.
You’re just a propagandized anticommunist with absolutely 0 empirical data to back up what you’re talking about, angry at communism because your life in capitalism was shit.
My life IN “capitalism” is actually pretty good. But I also had a free education and get decent hybrid-system healthcare.
And you’re just a propagandized anti-capitalist with 0 actual experience of life in USSR, angry at capitalism because your life in capitalism is shit.
while your Eastern European country becomes a fascist hellhole with destroyed infrastructure, fucked up healthcare, and massive migration towards the EU because people can’t find fucking jobs.
Outside of our most recent government, most of those things are actually improving here, lol. If anything, Eastern Europe is the new land of opportunity. There’s plenty of jobs for those willing to work, as well.
Wow, GDP, the metric of capitalism, rose! Nothing to do with the financialization of the economy, I’m sure! On that same study, which BTW only takes into account 2007-onward investment from what I see and doesnt take into account disintegration of existing infrastructure, shows on Figure 8 how the entire rural regions of the country have been abandoned by capitalism. What a great way of rising GDP, let’s force everyone through lack of infrastructure out of their homes and into big metropolises where housing is expensive (high GDP growth) and forget about the rest. Surely rural Eastern Europe is doing great!
You showed absolute quality of life, didn’t compare it to Soviet times. Now go and ask people above 50 where QOL was better, in communism or capitalism. Most people in Eastern Europe who actually lived through communism will agree that it was better on average in Communism!
Okay, cool, so the USSR was, by your words, less prone to creating a wealth disparity. And lets just not talk about the several million that died under Stalin. Now, the USSR may not have funneled wealth, but in the end, it still collapsed on itself. It did not last, and this was largely due to internal affairs.
As per the second part, sure, I’ll concede to you the pedantic semantics of the word utopia. My point still stands. Don’t get me wrong, if someome were to ask, “Would you rather live in a functioning capitalist society, or a functioning socialist society,” I would choose and tell others they should join the socialist one. My point is that, at some point, that government is still going to go to shit, just because people are people. Though, please do not take this as any sort of statement like, “don’t even try,” because a better life is a better life. If it’s feasable, go for it. It’s just that the core problem (human nature) isn’t going to be solved by a political ideology, rather, human nature will eventually fuck that ideology up.
And lets just not talk about the several million that died under Stalin
Let’s also talk about the tens of millions that were saved under Stalin from Nazi extermination, and about the tens of millions that were saved from hunger, poverty and treatable disease under Stalin, who took over a Soviet Union with a life expectancy of 27 years and died with a Soviet Union with a life expectancy of 60+ years. If you run the numbers, by any reasonable metric, the Soviet Union saved easily 30-40 million people in those years.
just because people are people
That sounds like a sophism, not like any real argument. What’s your point? Socialism fell not because it’s not sustainable, it fell because it appeared in a backward feudal country 100 years behind the capitalist west at its inception, and couldn’t keep up with the progress and technology that the industrialized west + colonies were able to put out. This is changing now, as the biggest communist country is China and it has already overtaken the west in terms of economic output, and it’s a matter of time before communism finally spreads to the rest of the world.
Cool, people were saved, even if you put it to a ratio of dead to saved, it’s still a shitty ratio. And again, it still fell.
I don’t give an ass’s arse that you think it sounds like sophistry. Human beings will fuck an ideology up, full stop. And while China is definitely doing well, modern China isn’t communist.
Cool, people were saved, even if you put it to a ratio of dead to saved, it’s still a shitty ratio.
Is it? Europe at the time was full of colonial powers carrying out genocide in India, Southern Asia and in many places of Africa, the USA was a colonial power emerged out of the genocide of native Americans keeping the entirety of Latin America underdeveloped… The USSR never had a colony and it was a self-sufficient system that didn’t rely on colonialism or neocolonialism, both of which kept and keep billions impoverished and overworked in the global south. Take those things into the ratio, compare countries, and you’ll find that there hasn’t been a country as moral and fair as the USSR.
I don’t give an ass’s arse that you think it sounds like sophistry. Human beings will fuck an ideology up, full stop.
“This may sound like I’m making shit up, but I’m very sure of it, full stop.”
modern China isn’t communist
Chinese people often call it “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”. You don’t wanna call it like that, that’s fine, it’s just terminology. The point is that it’s a fundamentally different economic and political system, and I think it’s measurably better than the west in many metrics. If you agree, then you probably agree that we should pursue a similar system, whether you decide to call it communist or not?
Workers in those regions had the same rights as workers anywhere, had self a representation in the government and local administration, and received massive boosts in quality of life through state investment in infrastructure, which ensured similar amounts of hospital beds per capita all over the country. You literally don’t know what “colony” means, there’s a reason why Central Asian countries for example overwhelmingly voted in favour of maintaining the USSR in the 1990 referendum.
Now that those regions have gone back to capitalism, a form of colonialism has returned, leading to disastrous conflicts like the Chechen War and the defunding of local infrastructure in favour of Moscow. Go open a book.
If you think that creation of USSR destroyed the tsarist culture of oppression, your education system has failed you.
Workers in those regions had the same rights
Provided they were Russian or Georgian.
self a representation in the government and local administration
Provided they were communists that spoke Russian.
You literally don’t know what “colony” means
A place that the core country exploits for resources and financial gain while abusing and exploiting their people?
Yeah I do. I live in a former one.
Central Asian countries for example overwhelmingly voted in favour of maintaining the USSR in the 1990 referendum.
And why didn’t they?
Now that those regions have gone back to capitalism, a form of colonialism has returned, leading to disastrous conflicts like the Chechen War and the defunding of local infrastructure in favour of Moscow.
Because the tsar has returned and so will the repression? Or maybe, because they can’t let more colonies leave them because the ones that did are doing so well?
Go open a book.
Yeah, you too. But maybe next time read something good and not something that defends a dead, failed state that brought misery to millions?
Spicy, first time I’ve seen anti-georgian nationalism. Funnily enough, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Ukrainian, I guess that’s not political representation to you?
A place that the core country exploits for resources and financial gain while abusing and exploiting their people?
This is literally not what happened. I already provided you information about things like hospital beds. Furthermore, every republic had the right to determine its own official language, people had access to education in their language up to 18 years of age (some universities also taught in the local language), most published books and newspapers by number were in the local language, all regions got industrialized though some were at a much more backwards starting point… If your metric for colonization is “extraction of resources”, then surely in the period between 1955 and 1990, in which the USSR was a net exporter of raw goods and hydrocarbons and net importer of industrial goods in the Eastern Block, Poland and Czechoslovakia were colonizing the USSR?
Because the tsar has returned and so will the repression?
Exactly my point, the tsar returned because there was no Tsar in the USSR. That’s why wealth inequality rose through the roof in all former republics after the change ro capitalism.
The USSR was not self-sufficient for starters, and again, it failed.Because of its own problems. And I’m not making anything up, you’re the one putting massive amounts of spin on things.
Chinese people often call it “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” You don’t wanna call it like that, that’s fine, it’s just terminology. The point is that it’s a fundamentally different economic and political system, and I think it’s measurably better than the west in many metrics. If you agree, then you probably agree that we should pursue a similar system, whether you decide to call it communist or not?
Yes, I would agree, and I don’t see why you seem to think otherwise. I already stated that given a choice between a functional capitalist society and a functioning socialist society I would choose and encourage others to pick the socialist one. You have very little going for you in this debate, and as a result you seem to be increasingly capitulating towards making me into something I’m not in order to cope.
Right now, China is in a good spot, and it also has the benefit of an absolutely massive population. If they can get 1.4 billion people organized, stabilized, and working together they will be an absolute force to be reckoned with, of which only India could compete (though they suck at getting their shit together, currently.) However, since Deng Xiaoping, China has increasingly embraced tactics from other political ideologies to suit the present needs and find what works. If anything, I would say the way China allows its government to evolve while keeping retraints on it is its strength. Also their soft power strategy, but that’s not a topic for now.
The USSR was from the start banned from international trade for the sin of being communist, only after WW2 did world markets open to it. Even then, it didn’t rely on any country for its energetic, food, material, or industrial needs. You can read about this on Robert C. Allen’s “Farm to Factory” or Alec Nove’s “An economic history of the USSR”. I’m not making things up, this is widely known.
No comment on the China thing. But if that’s the model that works, you should seek to establish a Communist Party rule in your country.
This is literally empirically false. Wealth inequality in, say, the USSR, plummeted to the lowest levels the region has ever seen. The top 1% in the USSR only had 4% of the total income, in modern capitalist Russia this number has risen at least to 20%. The top earners in the USSR were also not “le evil bureaucrat politicians”, but university professors, artists, and other members of the intelligentsia. Income inequality actually evolved downwards during the existence of the country. Your analysis is not based on real data, it’s based off vibes you’ve gotten from CIA propaganda.
I agree, but us communists are not utopians. Utopian socialism died in the mid 1800s, and Marx and Engels famously talked about Scientific Socialism as opposed to Utopian Socialism. The debate has been settled for almost 200 years: Marxists are not utopians.
You’re commiting a type of McNamara fallacy here by accounting for financial income and ignoring the ability of people in charge of a command economy to, well… command.
If you are in charge of people, you don’t need to pay for their services. You can command them to get things done. Imagine paying a company to asphalt 10 kilometres of road to your dacha. It would cost millions, but could be organised by most second-tier bureaucrats. Even now, Vladimir Putin doesn’t need money. He can ask for anything he wants and if some people die for that, it’s okay.
And yet, the intelligentsia often starved, because they had little to offer to the shadow economy. Even the people with thousands of roubles in their drawers had very little that money could buy, you could walk to a store with a full wallet and leave with nothing. And if it had anything, you would wait in a queue for several hours. People would queue up without knowing what they are waiting for.
It was far more important to have friends that can command some stuff your way. A cashier at a store or a cook at a cafeteria could get you the best food. A sailor could get you import magazines and electronics. A machine worker could get you tools and make you spare parts.
To a western person, this might seem obscene, but it’s how those economies have operated for decades and something people have to actively unlearn.
Ok, what you described with so many words is “corruption”. Corruption exists in any system, not specially in communism. Now you have the burden of providing numeric evidence that corruption was more widespread than it was in comparably developed countries at the time, and that it was big enough to generate differences in access to purchase power comparable to the ones we see nowadays.
It’s not just corruption when most people engage in it to some extent. You would literally see factory workers bring stuff from their work without hiding it en masse and nobody would get fired. And then you would trade or share stuff you stole with your friends who stole from their jobs. Try stealing stuff from your own job openly every day, see how well that goes.
Yes, because there is an easy way to measure how much everything costs in a system where monetary value means next to nothing. How much would a sirloin steak cost if somebody offered it to you on the street? What if your friend gave it to you? What if no steaks were available at a grocery store? Would you trust any estimate of a price when money is mostly meaningless?
Asking about purchasing power is also meaningless, you either knew someone who could get you stuff or you didn’t. In a weird way, Soviet shadow economy ran like a prison: if you know a guy, you can get stuff, if you don’t, you make do what is given to you or lie, cheat and steal to get what you need.
Also, official statistics would lie and as the lies travelled upwards, they would stray further and further from the truth. So no reliable statistics are available or possible. But you take what numbers you can find, ignore any you can’t get, and claim that Soviet Union was somehow a paradise, thus commiting McNamara fallacy:
Damn, that’s a lotta words to say “I have no evidence to support my claim of inequality in the USSR”. Your entire analysis is vibes-based so it can be entirely disregarded.
So what is it, was it only the party leaders commanding everyone at their will creating huge inequality, or is it everyone engaging in it? Because the original claim was the former. If everyone engaged in it, it’s not a mechanism for inequality.
Literally yes. You can measure so-called baskets and translate the goods and services to international prices. The fact that you can’t source up this data simply means you’re making it up, not that it’s not possible. If everyone had access to free healthcare, education to the highest level, housing costing 3% of the monthly income, there was no unemployment, and as you say a huge chunk of consumption was heavily subsidized, all of that points to inequality being low.
In capitalism, if you’re richer than your neighbor and you pay for a car they can’t afford, that’s legal and creates inequality. In Soviet communism, if you are owed a favor by an official and you get placed earlier on the list of car recipients, that’s illegal and it creates inequality. The entire point that you’re making, apparently, is that while in capitalism the mechanisms that lead to inequality of consumption are legal, in the USSR they were illegal. That’s not pointing in the direction you want it to point, and you’re only looking ridiculous because you’re clearly not speaking from data but from vibes.
Unlike in capitalism, where companies deciding how to do their own accounting without external supervision are surely not lying to anyone (wink wink) that’s why we constantly have banking and financial crises because banks and companies constantly lie about everything and anything which leads to huge bubbles and bursts. Don’t be ridiculous. Just admit you’re going off vibes and let it go.
I was born right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have experiences of my parents. I have experiences of my parents’ friends. I have experiences of my teachers.
Yes it is, because some things are in higher demand than others. Cashiers and cooks were like gods that got the first picks and everyone else had to pick what’s left.
The “baskets” were mostly empty, the pantries were often full. Things such as mayonnaise and canned peas were highly sought after deficit goods that were hard to acquire.
Bribing the doctor was expected if you needed anything more than a checkup.
was only available to the best students, once again encouraging bribery.
that you could hardly acquire, some people waited up to 30 years to be allowed to buy a flat and many lived in dorms with other people. I grew up sharing 67 square meter flat with 12 other people.
because it was illegal, but firing someone was very difficult as well, encouraging laziness, theft and alcoholism in the workforce.
Also, the competition for prestigious positions was fierce and often skewed by the favour system as well. My mother-in-law’s math teacher gave her a bad grade because the in-laws’ cousin got a position the teacher wanted for herself, sabotaging my mother-in-law’s chances at a higher education as a result. My mother-in-law later became a cashier at a local store and never sold the teacher any under the counter goods. They are both still alive and still hate each other to this day.
So was most of the production, because most factories would have collapsed without it. If it wasn’t for the oil fields in Siberia, Soviet Union would have collapsed much earlier.
Also, especially before Andropov, many factories produced things illegally just so they could buy things such as tools and machinery illegally. A nearby ship factory produced car trailers (a highly sought after deficit product) that they would sell for US dollars locally to buy other deficit goods needed for shipbuilding such as welding masks and gloves.
They were technically illegal but seldom punished. In fact, making deals and trading favours was a way of life.
At least you have the state statistics department and independent organisation checking their claims. As per Wikipedia:
Ok ok, so all public sector = bribery, all private sector = meritocracy, got it buddy! Free healthcare is bad because sometimes you’ll need to pay your doctor to get something done (I thought money was worthless?), unlike in private healthcare where you always need to pay your doctor and so poor people can’t get healthcare, so good!
In capitalism most people can’t even afford to buy a flat, again you’re proving you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Home ownership rate is 98% in Kazakhstan, 96% in China and Laos, 92% in Russia and Serbia, 90% in Cuba, and in glorious capitalist countries it’s 69% EU average, 66% in the USA, 57% in South Korea, or 42% in Switzerland. You’re just a propagandized anticommunist with absolutely 0 empirical data to back up what you’re talking about, angry at communism because your life in capitalism was shit.
It sounds to me like you should blame capitalism. Out of those 12 other people, how many were unemployed adults who would have had a job in capitalism?
Your comment is full of anecdotes, but again you have 0 statistical data about what you’re saying. Literally all of that takes place in capitalism even worse, and I’m giving you data for it. Keep crying about communism while your Eastern European country becomes a fascist hellhole with destroyed infrastructure, fucked up healthcare, and massive migration towards the EU because people can’t find fucking jobs.
It was. You would mostly bribe people with stuff.
We inherited the living situation from the Soviet era. Gradually, other people moved out to their own places and we bought the rest of the flat from them.
My life IN “capitalism” is actually pretty good. But I also had a free education and get decent hybrid-system healthcare.
And you’re just a propagandized anti-capitalist with 0 actual experience of life in USSR, angry at capitalism because your life in capitalism is shit.
Outside of our most recent government, most of those things are actually improving here, lol. If anything, Eastern Europe is the new land of opportunity. There’s plenty of jobs for those willing to work, as well.
GDP:
QoL:
Absolute changes in potential road accessibility in the period 2007–2015. (a) Pan-European perspective; (b) macro-regional/CEE perspective.
Wow, GDP, the metric of capitalism, rose! Nothing to do with the financialization of the economy, I’m sure! On that same study, which BTW only takes into account 2007-onward investment from what I see and doesnt take into account disintegration of existing infrastructure, shows on Figure 8 how the entire rural regions of the country have been abandoned by capitalism. What a great way of rising GDP, let’s force everyone through lack of infrastructure out of their homes and into big metropolises where housing is expensive (high GDP growth) and forget about the rest. Surely rural Eastern Europe is doing great!
You showed absolute quality of life, didn’t compare it to Soviet times. Now go and ask people above 50 where QOL was better, in communism or capitalism. Most people in Eastern Europe who actually lived through communism will agree that it was better on average in Communism!
Okay, cool, so the USSR was, by your words, less prone to creating a wealth disparity. And lets just not talk about the several million that died under Stalin. Now, the USSR may not have funneled wealth, but in the end, it still collapsed on itself. It did not last, and this was largely due to internal affairs.
As per the second part, sure, I’ll concede to you the pedantic semantics of the word utopia. My point still stands. Don’t get me wrong, if someome were to ask, “Would you rather live in a functioning capitalist society, or a functioning socialist society,” I would choose and tell others they should join the socialist one. My point is that, at some point, that government is still going to go to shit, just because people are people. Though, please do not take this as any sort of statement like, “don’t even try,” because a better life is a better life. If it’s feasable, go for it. It’s just that the core problem (human nature) isn’t going to be solved by a political ideology, rather, human nature will eventually fuck that ideology up.
Let’s also talk about the tens of millions that were saved under Stalin from Nazi extermination, and about the tens of millions that were saved from hunger, poverty and treatable disease under Stalin, who took over a Soviet Union with a life expectancy of 27 years and died with a Soviet Union with a life expectancy of 60+ years. If you run the numbers, by any reasonable metric, the Soviet Union saved easily 30-40 million people in those years.
That sounds like a sophism, not like any real argument. What’s your point? Socialism fell not because it’s not sustainable, it fell because it appeared in a backward feudal country 100 years behind the capitalist west at its inception, and couldn’t keep up with the progress and technology that the industrialized west + colonies were able to put out. This is changing now, as the biggest communist country is China and it has already overtaken the west in terms of economic output, and it’s a matter of time before communism finally spreads to the rest of the world.
Cool, people were saved, even if you put it to a ratio of dead to saved, it’s still a shitty ratio. And again, it still fell.
I don’t give an ass’s arse that you think it sounds like sophistry. Human beings will fuck an ideology up, full stop. And while China is definitely doing well, modern China isn’t communist.
Is it? Europe at the time was full of colonial powers carrying out genocide in India, Southern Asia and in many places of Africa, the USA was a colonial power emerged out of the genocide of native Americans keeping the entirety of Latin America underdeveloped… The USSR never had a colony and it was a self-sufficient system that didn’t rely on colonialism or neocolonialism, both of which kept and keep billions impoverished and overworked in the global south. Take those things into the ratio, compare countries, and you’ll find that there hasn’t been a country as moral and fair as the USSR.
“This may sound like I’m making shit up, but I’m very sure of it, full stop.”
Chinese people often call it “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”. You don’t wanna call it like that, that’s fine, it’s just terminology. The point is that it’s a fundamentally different economic and political system, and I think it’s measurably better than the west in many metrics. If you agree, then you probably agree that we should pursue a similar system, whether you decide to call it communist or not?
Picks up a map.
Siberia? The Baltics? Caucasus? Central Asia? Warsaw pact countries?
Those were all Soviet colonies. A lot of them still are Russian colonies. Russia is the last colonial empire that refuses to die.
“USSR BAD!!!” picks map from Tsarist Empire
Workers in those regions had the same rights as workers anywhere, had self a representation in the government and local administration, and received massive boosts in quality of life through state investment in infrastructure, which ensured similar amounts of hospital beds per capita all over the country. You literally don’t know what “colony” means, there’s a reason why Central Asian countries for example overwhelmingly voted in favour of maintaining the USSR in the 1990 referendum.
Now that those regions have gone back to capitalism, a form of colonialism has returned, leading to disastrous conflicts like the Chechen War and the defunding of local infrastructure in favour of Moscow. Go open a book.
If you think that creation of USSR destroyed the tsarist culture of oppression, your education system has failed you.
Provided they were Russian or Georgian.
Provided they were communists that spoke Russian.
A place that the core country exploits for resources and financial gain while abusing and exploiting their people?
Yeah I do. I live in a former one.
And why didn’t they?
Because the tsar has returned and so will the repression? Or maybe, because they can’t let more colonies leave them because the ones that did are doing so well?
Yeah, you too. But maybe next time read something good and not something that defends a dead, failed state that brought misery to millions?
Spicy, first time I’ve seen anti-georgian nationalism. Funnily enough, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Ukrainian, I guess that’s not political representation to you?
This is literally not what happened. I already provided you information about things like hospital beds. Furthermore, every republic had the right to determine its own official language, people had access to education in their language up to 18 years of age (some universities also taught in the local language), most published books and newspapers by number were in the local language, all regions got industrialized though some were at a much more backwards starting point… If your metric for colonization is “extraction of resources”, then surely in the period between 1955 and 1990, in which the USSR was a net exporter of raw goods and hydrocarbons and net importer of industrial goods in the Eastern Block, Poland and Czechoslovakia were colonizing the USSR?
Exactly my point, the tsar returned because there was no Tsar in the USSR. That’s why wealth inequality rose through the roof in all former republics after the change ro capitalism.
The USSR was not self-sufficient for starters, and again, it failed. Because of its own problems. And I’m not making anything up, you’re the one putting massive amounts of spin on things.
Yes, I would agree, and I don’t see why you seem to think otherwise. I already stated that given a choice between a functional capitalist society and a functioning socialist society I would choose and encourage others to pick the socialist one. You have very little going for you in this debate, and as a result you seem to be increasingly capitulating towards making me into something I’m not in order to cope.
Right now, China is in a good spot, and it also has the benefit of an absolutely massive population. If they can get 1.4 billion people organized, stabilized, and working together they will be an absolute force to be reckoned with, of which only India could compete (though they suck at getting their shit together, currently.) However, since Deng Xiaoping, China has increasingly embraced tactics from other political ideologies to suit the present needs and find what works. If anything, I would say the way China allows its government to evolve while keeping retraints on it is its strength. Also their soft power strategy, but that’s not a topic for now.
The USSR was from the start banned from international trade for the sin of being communist, only after WW2 did world markets open to it. Even then, it didn’t rely on any country for its energetic, food, material, or industrial needs. You can read about this on Robert C. Allen’s “Farm to Factory” or Alec Nove’s “An economic history of the USSR”. I’m not making things up, this is widely known.
No comment on the China thing. But if that’s the model that works, you should seek to establish a Communist Party rule in your country.