6 ms·

> The USSR, had it not had to fight a cold war against the US, could very well have been a much better system not just for space flight, but for a way to struct

> The USSR, had it not had to fight a cold war against the US, could very well have been a much better system not just for space flight, but for a way to structure and run society in general. What makes you think that? If they had such a wonderful "way to structure and run society in general", why did the USSR and its satellite states have to systematically mass murder people who wanted to leave this wonderful society? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bloc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bl... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schie%C3%9Fbefehl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schie%C3%9Fbefehl [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_from_Soviet_mass_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_from_Soviet_mass_e... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_prisoner_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_prisoner_massacres [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Layke1123 6y ago
Well, why did the US actively try to harm the USSR? If it was such a bad way of doing things, why did the US actively go out of it's way to sabotage it rather than just ignore it and let it die?
- Cogito 6y ago
  This is moving the goalposts. It's possible that the USSR would have been a better system, had the cold war not happened, but that's not the world we live in. If you want to make that argument you have to explain why it's reasonable to excuse how the USSR turned out in reality, and why in your hypothetical world it would have turned out differently. With respect to space advancement, I suspect the main reason for sustained differences in accomplishments come down primarly to the amount of resources each were able to devote to space. The US was able to sustain a high level of investment for a long time, and the USSR was not.
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    It's not moving to goalposts to acknowledge that the USSR beat us to space and that a large part of their collapse was due directly to the influence of the US.
    - alentist 6y ago
      On the contrary: It was Western technology and capital that propped up the USSR despite its repeated failures and inefficiencies. https://capx.co/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-technology/ https://capx.co/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-te...
      - Layke1123 6y ago
        Lol, who beat Nazi Germany? Western technology or Soviet tech?
        souprock 6y ago
        FDR supplied the Soviet Union with lots of Western tech, including aircraft.
    - Cogito 6y ago
      Upthread there was a claim by evgen that the way the US vs Soviet approach to the space race had been characterised by mempko was incorrect, and that the current safety of the Soyuz was (at least in part) paid for with the lives of cosmonauts. You go on to state that Russia beat the US into space (which is a non-sequitur), and later expand that "The USSR, had it not had to fight a cold war against the US, could very well have been a much better system not just for space flight, but for a way to structure and run society in general." When challenged by alentist, who asked "why did the USSR and its satellite states have to systematically mass murder people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?" you countered with "If it was such a bad way of doing things, why did the US actively go out of it's way to sabotage it" which is moving the goalposts, and starts to slide into whattaboutism. Specifically you claimed that the USSR "could very well have been" a better way to structure a society, and alentist provided strong evidence that it was not - people were murdered when they tried to leave. Instead of trying to prove your point you deflected, and shifted the goalposts from "this could very well have been a good system" to "the US didn't like it therefore it couldn't have been bad".
- alentist 6y ago
  You completely dodged the question and tried to change the subject, so I'll ask it again: If they had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder people who wanted to leave this wonderful society? Your question, on the other hand, is silly. Substitute the USSR with Nazi Germany.
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    Why did the US have to systemically mass murder Native Americans and enslave Africans Americans and fight over seas wars in Vietnam and North Korea? If you can assert their atrocities, I can so also assert the US's. You are dodging, not me.
    - alentist 6y ago
      You again keep trying to dodge the question and change the subject, so I'll ask it yet again: If the USSR had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder ordinary people who wanted to leave this wonderful society? If you're saying that slavery is also abhorrent and evil—like the slavery and mass murder that takes place under Communism—then we're in agreement. Now, can you please answer the question?
      - Layke1123 6y ago
        So you agree, capitalism has been responsible for slavery and mass murder?
        alentist 6y ago
        Not at all. That's nonsense. Now, can you please answer the question you keep dodging? If the USSR had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder ordinary people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?
        Layke1123 6y ago
sudosysgen 6y ago
A significant reason why Stalin was able to successfully rise to power and why the Bolsheviks were able to secure total power is because of foreign violence and interference. When all major foreign powers say that they wish for the destruction of your country and would openly prefer you to go back to more suffering, support for monsters like Stalin increases. Equally, when the threat of invasion is as high as it was for the USSR from Britain and the US, a lot of money and power is invested in the military. It's very possible that if it wasn't for massive foreign interference neither Stalin nor Trotsky would ever have been able to gain much power (both of them got their power from military conflict mainly, Stalin even moreso), the NKVD never would have gotten nearly as much funding, Lavrentiy Beria would probably have been put against the wall, and so on.
- evgen 6y ago
  It takes a profoundly ignorant view of historical facts to blame Stalin and Trotsky on foreign interference.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    It takes a profoundly ignorant view of historical facts to ignore the immense pervasiveness of foreign interference in the Russian Civil War. The mere presence of the Bolsheviks as a dominant force was due to foreign interference, as the Germans installed him and his friends in an attempt to destabilize the Russian Empire. Trotsky's growth in authoritarianism, when he was previously a moderating force, started with the opportunistic German attacks at the fleets of the Red Army, and of course his rise to power from a middling figure to a preeminent Bolshevik was only made possible by German incitement of the Bolshevik movement to begin with. Even Stalin's justification for power was based on (justified) appeals to centrally planned heavy industries, whose main motivation was military power which was necessary to to threats of invasion. It is clear to anyone that both Stalin and Trotsky would have had much, much less power if they weren't able to justify centralization on the necessity to resist foreign agression, beyond that the consolidation of the Bolsheviks to begin with was a German plot.
    - 6y ago

Layke1123 6y ago

Well, why did the US actively try to harm the USSR? If it was such a bad way of doing things, why did the US actively go out of it's way to sabotage it rather than just ignore it and let it die?

Cogito 6y ago
This is moving the goalposts. It's possible that the USSR would have been a better system, had the cold war not happened, but that's not the world we live in. If you want to make that argument you have to explain why it's reasonable to excuse how the USSR turned out in reality, and why in your hypothetical world it would have turned out differently. With respect to space advancement, I suspect the main reason for sustained differences in accomplishments come down primarly to the amount of resources each were able to devote to space. The US was able to sustain a high level of investment for a long time, and the USSR was not.
- Layke1123 6y ago
  It's not moving to goalposts to acknowledge that the USSR beat us to space and that a large part of their collapse was due directly to the influence of the US.
  - alentist 6y ago
    On the contrary: It was Western technology and capital that propped up the USSR despite its repeated failures and inefficiencies. https://capx.co/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-technology/ https://capx.co/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-te...
    - Layke1123 6y ago
      Lol, who beat Nazi Germany? Western technology or Soviet tech?
      - souprock 6y ago
        FDR supplied the Soviet Union with lots of Western tech, including aircraft.
  - Cogito 6y ago
    Upthread there was a claim by evgen that the way the US vs Soviet approach to the space race had been characterised by mempko was incorrect, and that the current safety of the Soyuz was (at least in part) paid for with the lives of cosmonauts. You go on to state that Russia beat the US into space (which is a non-sequitur), and later expand that "The USSR, had it not had to fight a cold war against the US, could very well have been a much better system not just for space flight, but for a way to structure and run society in general." When challenged by alentist, who asked "why did the USSR and its satellite states have to systematically mass murder people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?" you countered with "If it was such a bad way of doing things, why did the US actively go out of it's way to sabotage it" which is moving the goalposts, and starts to slide into whattaboutism. Specifically you claimed that the USSR "could very well have been" a better way to structure a society, and alentist provided strong evidence that it was not - people were murdered when they tried to leave. Instead of trying to prove your point you deflected, and shifted the goalposts from "this could very well have been a good system" to "the US didn't like it therefore it couldn't have been bad".
alentist 6y ago
You completely dodged the question and tried to change the subject, so I'll ask it again: If they had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder people who wanted to leave this wonderful society? Your question, on the other hand, is silly. Substitute the USSR with Nazi Germany.
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Why did the US have to systemically mass murder Native Americans and enslave Africans Americans and fight over seas wars in Vietnam and North Korea? If you can assert their atrocities, I can so also assert the US's. You are dodging, not me.
  - alentist 6y ago
    You again keep trying to dodge the question and change the subject, so I'll ask it yet again: If the USSR had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder ordinary people who wanted to leave this wonderful society? If you're saying that slavery is also abhorrent and evil—like the slavery and mass murder that takes place under Communism—then we're in agreement. Now, can you please answer the question?
    - Layke1123 6y ago
      So you agree, capitalism has been responsible for slavery and mass murder?
      - alentist 6y ago
        Not at all. That's nonsense. Now, can you please answer the question you keep dodging? If the USSR had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder ordinary people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?
        Layke1123 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

A significant reason why Stalin was able to successfully rise to power and why the Bolsheviks were able to secure total power is because of foreign violence and interference. When all major foreign powers say that they wish for the destruction of your country and would openly prefer you to go back to more suffering, support for monsters like Stalin increases. Equally, when the threat of invasion is as high as it was for the USSR from Britain and the US, a lot of money and power is invested in the military. It's very possible that if it wasn't for massive foreign interference neither Stalin nor Trotsky would ever have been able to gain much power (both of them got their power from military conflict mainly, Stalin even moreso), the NKVD never would have gotten nearly as much funding, Lavrentiy Beria would probably have been put against the wall, and so on.

evgen 6y ago
It takes a profoundly ignorant view of historical facts to blame Stalin and Trotsky on foreign interference.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It takes a profoundly ignorant view of historical facts to ignore the immense pervasiveness of foreign interference in the Russian Civil War. The mere presence of the Bolsheviks as a dominant force was due to foreign interference, as the Germans installed him and his friends in an attempt to destabilize the Russian Empire. Trotsky's growth in authoritarianism, when he was previously a moderating force, started with the opportunistic German attacks at the fleets of the Red Army, and of course his rise to power from a middling figure to a preeminent Bolshevik was only made possible by German incitement of the Bolshevik movement to begin with. Even Stalin's justification for power was based on (justified) appeals to centrally planned heavy industries, whose main motivation was military power which was necessary to to threats of invasion. It is clear to anyone that both Stalin and Trotsky would have had much, much less power if they weren't able to justify centralization on the necessity to resist foreign agression, beyond that the consolidation of the Bolsheviks to begin with was a German plot.
  - 6y ago