5 ms·

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.

by 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".
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    Part you aren't answering the question directly. Did the US not persecute communists? Has the US not directly been involved in wars in communist countries that have led to millions of deaths, both military and civilians? You say the USSR killed its people, yet you won't admit those people were leaving because they wanted apparently to go to capitalist societies. What happens if capitalist societies don't exist? Where are those people going to? Or was the USSR killing people just to kill people as you claim?
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Of course you're right. USA has been continually at war, grinding the lives of brown people into profits for rich bastards, since before independence from Britain. Lots of Americans moved to USSR, especially non-whites. Truman had four years in which Stalin would have been happy to sign away nuclear weapons forever, but instead he was led by the nose by the armaments manufacturers and kept creating ever-more-deadly nukes. USSR continually tried to rein in communists in other nations in order to try to preserve peace, but was painted as a great instigator by the airtight propaganda that we Americans choke in from our births. Still, it would have been better not to restrict emigration. That was not humane, and betrayed an antiquated view of how the world works.

by Cogito 6y ago

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".
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Part you aren't answering the question directly. Did the US not persecute communists? Has the US not directly been involved in wars in communist countries that have led to millions of deaths, both military and civilians? You say the USSR killed its people, yet you won't admit those people were leaving because they wanted apparently to go to capitalist societies. What happens if capitalist societies don't exist? Where are those people going to? Or was the USSR killing people just to kill people as you claim?
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Of course you're right. USA has been continually at war, grinding the lives of brown people into profits for rich bastards, since before independence from Britain. Lots of Americans moved to USSR, especially non-whites. Truman had four years in which Stalin would have been happy to sign away nuclear weapons forever, but instead he was led by the nose by the armaments manufacturers and kept creating ever-more-deadly nukes. USSR continually tried to rein in communists in other nations in order to try to preserve peace, but was painted as a great instigator by the airtight propaganda that we Americans choke in from our births. Still, it would have been better not to restrict emigration. That was not humane, and betrayed an antiquated view of how the world works.