3 ms·

Millions starved to death in collectivization, even more millions displaced from their homes and sent to gulags. Intelligentsia eradicated as a class. The bigge

Millions starved to death in collectivization, even more millions displaced from their homes and sent to gulags. Intelligentsia eradicated as a class. The biggest and potentially richest country in the world collapsed due to planned economy. And that’s just my layman knowledge typing on a phone, I’m sure many historians can decimate your comment even harder.

ozzythecat 4y ago
> Millions starved to death in collectivization, even more millions displaced from their homes and sent to gulags. Intelligentsia eradicated as a class. The biggest and potentially richest country in the world collapsed due to planned economy. Communism didn’t work, for sure, but I’m not sure how this takes away from the things that the Soviets did accomplish, which op listed above. I also find it interesting the standard we judge the Soviets by. Millions have starved under capitalism, but in comparison to what? the Western world where we’ve been constantly at war with some country in the world, treating brown people as less than humans, causing refugee crises in the millions and civil wars? I know the typical response to this comment is something like, “Oh but that’s whataboutism”. Well the reality is that as an American, I we should have the self awareness to recognize that we’re like a skunk complaining about the stench from another skunk. Back to the original topic - the anti Russia frenzy is in full swing. This much should be clear to anyone, based on the tone of this article.
- ztrww 4y ago
  half of the things op listed are false, though.
asdff 4y ago
The economy arguments always annoyed me about communism. No country would have an easy time avoiding economic collapse with a US and all her allies global embargo going on for decades. Plus we probably would not have won WWII so quickly if we had not resorted to using a planned economy to turn the nation from an economically depressed state still in the great depression into a global superpower.
- rurp 4y ago
  The embargos weren't out of spite; the Soviet Union was an aggressive bad actor in a myriad of ways. I'm not sure why implementing a wartime economic measures is supposed to be a knock. The US economy is far from a textbook definition of capitalism, just like Communist China is nothing like the dictionary definition of Communism. All economic systems are hodgepodge of economic systems, full of good and bad ideas, some with more good than others.
  - my_city 4y ago
    "The embargos weren't out of spite" hahaha. Let me laugh more: HAHAHHAHAHA. You are the kind of guy who believes that American sanctions against Venezuela are "well-meaning", that the bombing of civilian populations are "shameful errors", that lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "an honest mistake", that the invasion of Afghanistan was done to "combat terrorism" and that the bombing of Syriah was to "promote democracy and freedom", right? You sincerely believe that, correct?
    - ztrww 4y ago
      USSR did fairly well in the 50s, 60s and 70s though. Most of the really bad things (e.g. mass starvation) happened years before the cold war started. American companies like Ford invested into building factories in the Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s hardly a sign of an economic embargo. So you’re implying that US should cooperate with autocratic regimes and empower their rulers to further oppress the people living there? Obviously they tried that as well and I’m sure you’d criticize it as much. So which one is the right option? They should’ve hanged Sadam back in 91, the only problem is that it took two wars for that to happen. Getting rid of the Taliban was the right thing to do as well, but again the fucked up there miserably as well. Same in Syria (obviously you have the Russians involved there to which complicates things)
      - my_city 4y ago
        "So you’re implying that US should cooperate with autocratic regimes and empower their rulers to further oppress the people living there? Obviously they tried that as well and I’m sure you’d criticize it as much. So which one is the right option?" Communist governments are not "autocratic regimes that oppress the people living there". That's propaganda. They are socialist governments where the proletariat controls the State through its Vanguard, which is the Communist Party. If there is a fact that distinguish socialist countries is the desire to provide a high standard of living to their citizens, with a special emphasis in education, health care, and erradicating poverty. The USSR, Cuba, China, and all socialist countries were extremely successful in that, so no, they don't "oppress" their people, the people actually govern the State, and not the capitalists. Comunist states are very sucessful, that's why the West needs to invest so much in wars, propaganda, coup attempts and economic warfare to try to destroy them. Think for a millisecond, if socialist states weren't sucessful, why the US would spend so much effort in trying to destroy them? It doesn't make sense, simply let them fail, after all, communism doesn't work, right? Why would someone dedicate any effort to destroy something that is already doomed? The answer is simple: communism DOES work, IT IS sucessful, and if let alone would quickly become unstopable. That's why the West has always tried to destroy it, because they don't want the world to realize that a viable option to capitalism exists.

ozzythecat 4y ago

> Millions starved to death in collectivization, even more millions displaced from their homes and sent to gulags. Intelligentsia eradicated as a class. The biggest and potentially richest country in the world collapsed due to planned economy. Communism didn’t work, for sure, but I’m not sure how this takes away from the things that the Soviets did accomplish, which op listed above. I also find it interesting the standard we judge the Soviets by. Millions have starved under capitalism, but in comparison to what? the Western world where we’ve been constantly at war with some country in the world, treating brown people as less than humans, causing refugee crises in the millions and civil wars? I know the typical response to this comment is something like, “Oh but that’s whataboutism”. Well the reality is that as an American, I we should have the self awareness to recognize that we’re like a skunk complaining about the stench from another skunk. Back to the original topic - the anti Russia frenzy is in full swing. This much should be clear to anyone, based on the tone of this article.

ztrww 4y ago
half of the things op listed are false, though.

asdff 4y ago

The economy arguments always annoyed me about communism. No country would have an easy time avoiding economic collapse with a US and all her allies global embargo going on for decades. Plus we probably would not have won WWII so quickly if we had not resorted to using a planned economy to turn the nation from an economically depressed state still in the great depression into a global superpower.

rurp 4y ago
The embargos weren't out of spite; the Soviet Union was an aggressive bad actor in a myriad of ways. I'm not sure why implementing a wartime economic measures is supposed to be a knock. The US economy is far from a textbook definition of capitalism, just like Communist China is nothing like the dictionary definition of Communism. All economic systems are hodgepodge of economic systems, full of good and bad ideas, some with more good than others.
- my_city 4y ago
  "The embargos weren't out of spite" hahaha. Let me laugh more: HAHAHHAHAHA. You are the kind of guy who believes that American sanctions against Venezuela are "well-meaning", that the bombing of civilian populations are "shameful errors", that lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "an honest mistake", that the invasion of Afghanistan was done to "combat terrorism" and that the bombing of Syriah was to "promote democracy and freedom", right? You sincerely believe that, correct?
  - ztrww 4y ago
    USSR did fairly well in the 50s, 60s and 70s though. Most of the really bad things (e.g. mass starvation) happened years before the cold war started. American companies like Ford invested into building factories in the Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s hardly a sign of an economic embargo. So you’re implying that US should cooperate with autocratic regimes and empower their rulers to further oppress the people living there? Obviously they tried that as well and I’m sure you’d criticize it as much. So which one is the right option? They should’ve hanged Sadam back in 91, the only problem is that it took two wars for that to happen. Getting rid of the Taliban was the right thing to do as well, but again the fucked up there miserably as well. Same in Syria (obviously you have the Russians involved there to which complicates things)
    - my_city 4y ago
      "So you’re implying that US should cooperate with autocratic regimes and empower their rulers to further oppress the people living there? Obviously they tried that as well and I’m sure you’d criticize it as much. So which one is the right option?" Communist governments are not "autocratic regimes that oppress the people living there". That's propaganda. They are socialist governments where the proletariat controls the State through its Vanguard, which is the Communist Party. If there is a fact that distinguish socialist countries is the desire to provide a high standard of living to their citizens, with a special emphasis in education, health care, and erradicating poverty. The USSR, Cuba, China, and all socialist countries were extremely successful in that, so no, they don't "oppress" their people, the people actually govern the State, and not the capitalists. Comunist states are very sucessful, that's why the West needs to invest so much in wars, propaganda, coup attempts and economic warfare to try to destroy them. Think for a millisecond, if socialist states weren't sucessful, why the US would spend so much effort in trying to destroy them? It doesn't make sense, simply let them fail, after all, communism doesn't work, right? Why would someone dedicate any effort to destroy something that is already doomed? The answer is simple: communism DOES work, IT IS sucessful, and if let alone would quickly become unstopable. That's why the West has always tried to destroy it, because they don't want the world to realize that a viable option to capitalism exists.