Were the Soviets the good guys?

Very.

Except:
They DID explore space.
They DID depose the aristocracy and give more power to the common man.
They DID produce the best utopian science fiction novels.

What lies have the capitalist pigs been telling you?

yes, before they were suppressed by the bolshevik comissarocracy

Efficient.

And unesthetic and shitty and ugly.

>They DID depose the aristocracy and give more power to the common man.
Look at those candidates in an election ballot.

>They DID explore space.
Not a big deal
>They DID depose the aristocracy and give more power to the common man.
What were all those purges and those nomenklaturas but tsardom practiced by the party?
>They DID produce the best utopian science fiction novels.
You're right: F -- I -- C -- T -- I -- O -- N

>utopias are a good thing

"More power to the common man"

As far as aristocracies with a landed gentry go - sure.

Though you could argue that's like smashing eggs with the shells, then forcing someone to eat it.

Technically you fed them, but that could have been done in a less retarded manner.

However - for places like Poland, the Baltics, Karelia and so forth it was a massive step back in liberty for the common man - both political and economic.

Yes, the good guys lost and capitalism won.

I don't read their backward language.

>Not a big deal.
You're a faggot and I hate you. Space is serious business and very important.
>What were all those purges and those nomenklaturas but tsardom practiced by the party?
What's your point? That has very little directly to do with the FACT that the aristocraccy was deposed and more power was given to the common man.
>You're right: F -- I -- C -- T -- I -- O -- N
Yeah, and absolutely no one misunderstood that. Fucking hell.

Typical western commiecuck.

>You're a faggot and I hate you. Space is serious business and very important.

Go back to YFLS you teenage moron.

"Leave the name of a SINGLE candidate you vote for, cross out every other one".

That ballot has one candidate.

So you hate me? Ok champ.

How was more power given to the common man when it was basically just the nomenklatura forming a new form of aristocracy? Common man didn't have any sort of say.

We love democracy. And when we are ultimately democratically elected democracy has succeeded and is no longer needed.

>space is awful and I hate it
Fuck off internet entirely, misanthropic scum.

youtube.com/watch?v=b6n8Vt9aTOs

I'm not a communist.

Well that's a nightmare and a half. Why are you posting that?

As I understand it life was still better for the common man than they were before the revolution. There is always going to be some sort of class structure no matter what though.

Because it's related to your post.

How?

The lyrics, nigga.

This is an English speaking board tho. Why would you think some random ass user on an English speaking board can understand the gibberish coming out of slavic mouths?

You're in no way qualified to talk about the USSR if you can't understand Russian.

Do you usually use your second language as an excuse to state your opinions as fact? I wouldn't characterize someone who seeks the first excuse to end a discussion as someone who particularly values knowledge and discourse. You people are much too common in the world.

>Do you have a physics or engineering degree? No? Then you have no grounds to talk about renewable energy versus fossil fuels. I win. Goodbye.

>You're in no way qualified to talk about the Roman Empire if you can't understand Latin.

Agreed amicus meus. You're pretty much a retard if you don't understand classical languages anyway and should refrain from discussing history.

Get a load of this guy.

>You're in no way qualified to talk about Novgorod if you can't understand Old Church Slavonic.
>You're in no way qualified to talk about Mercia if you can't understand Old English.
>You're in no way qualified to talk about Aryans if you can't understand Proto-Indo European.

The Soviets did turn quite jelly as soon as the USA got a lead in the space program.

It really is true to some extent to be honest. If you want any sort of a deep understanding you’re going to have to work with primary sources eventually.

Can that really be attributed to the new political system rather than the economic growth?
While Stalin did make the economy grow, Russia had been in an industrialization already under the Tsars, so in the long run they would have been about as good off.
Maybe even better off if they would have been able to dodge their leader cults from world war 2, simply because the survival of the tsardom was dependent on the first world war and the following second world war.

>While Stalin did make the economy grow, Russia had been in an industrialization already under the Tsars, so in the long run they would have been about as good off.
That's what capitalism apologists always say, but the tsar had decades to industrialize Russia and raise living standards, and he didn't. Stalin accomplished more in 30 years than the Russian monarchy did in hundreds of years. I don't believe things would have suddenly been much better if given just a few decades more.

Maybe i am wrong, but Russia was having an at least decent economic growth before the war.

>Stalin accomplished more in 30 years than the Russian monarchy did in hundreds of years.
>I don't believe things would have suddenly been much better if given just a few decades more.

What a remarkably puerile understanding of technological and social progress.

And it's really not true too because someone who doesn't speak Russian can know Russian history more than a native speaker. It's an idiotic form of argument.

Pretty doubtful as the non-Russian speaking "expert" is inherently just uncritically repeating something that someone else told him, while the Russian speaking expert can actually verify his sources.

>someone who doesn't speak Russian can know Russian history more than a native speaker.
Of course they can, but it's nonetheless true that someone dedicated to the field who can speak the language will certainly have access to a lot more information that someone who doesn't. In the case of Veeky Forums, though, discourse isn't at a level high enough for this to matter, so you're right about it being a shit argument.

Yes.

It doesn't take much to notice that the USA is very clearly the worst thing to happen to world peace in the past century.

Yes there is, the proletariat.

Yes. At least compared to modern bad guys who are ISIS.

I didn't say expert. I said native Russian speaker. That's what the user's argument is predicated on. That non-Russian speakers should shut up and just trust what he says because he speaks Russian.

In which case this tangent is over, because the user was implying that anyone who doesn't speak Russian shouldn't be allowed to discuss Russian history, implying that he knows best because he knows Russian.

You mean the USA.

> In the case of Veeky Forums, though, discourse isn't at a level high enough for this to matter, so you're right about it being a shit argument.
I disagree because since these arguments are not occurring at a high level we can automatically assume the Russian speaker has better sources about Russia than the non-Russian speaker.

To put it another way
Russian speaker: Opinion about Russia + Source (speaking Russian makes them a primary source)
Non-Russian speaker: Opinion about Russia

No matter what level of discourse the Russian speaker will inherently have better sources than the non-Russian speaker if all else is assumed to be equal.

He should because he has no direct experience to counter what the Russian speaker says.

Who has a more trustworthy opinion about the handling of Indy cars, some guy on the internet or some guy on the internet that actually raves Indy cars?

Wikipedia does not trump actual experience.

No, Patton could have taken Moscow had it not been for Eisenhower and other politically ambitious generals, as well as others back in the states.

FDR was too friendly with the Soviets as well.

Napoleon

Also note that I put expert in quotation marks implying the person in question is not an actual expert.

Not included is the attempted coup on Chavez back in 2002.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt

Don't trust C*bans

No. We weren't the good guys either, though.

> actual experience
> in fucking history

He's pretty correct. I know this since I studied tons of primary Austro-Hungarian sources and know that 99% of common perception about it is nothing but horseshit.

I always found it hilarious how punk movements in the West were emphatically leftist while punk movements in the east were emphatically right-wing. There's a good documentary about punk movements in Bulgaria and how they evolved into modern neo-nazi parties. Can't remember the name off the top of my head.

Because they were counter-culture. There was this band in Czechoslovakia in the 70s, a bunch of hippies playing psych rock and they were all diehard Catholics that went to church every sunday, in a country that had an atheist majority and government.

this guy gets it

Leftypol go and stay go.

yes

No. If you don't believe the USSR was literally the evil empire you're retarded.

If you want a hugbox just go to regular /pol/.

Neither side was "good".
Both sides committed political murder and atrocity.
Both used smaller countries as pawns and proxies.
Both sides threatened the world with nuclear destruction.

How can either "side" be considered "good"?

It's just funny to me when you think of how people in punk culture act and how in reality they're just contrarians for the sake of. They're Veeky Forums incarnate.

Book recommendation for you.

Woah, forgot pic.

you need an helicopter ride

>The USA is evil
>Therefore the Soviet Union was not
That's not how it works.

And you need a Mussolini face-lift.

...

Maybe so, but the case to be made is that the USSR was the lesser-evil.

Back to Auschwitz

thanks to Pinochet AKA the pinko remover, Chile is one of the best nations of LATAM...while venezuela and cuba are shitholes

I get you have issues with authority and feel like you're above your surroundings, but you don't have to side with the opposite team just because the US did some bad stuff and you have daddy issues.

>but the case to be made is that the USSR was the lesser-evil
No, it really can't. While the US suppressed human rights abroad, the Soviet Union did it abroad and in their own country. The US may have killed thousands in Vietnam, but Soyuz purged millions within their own fucking borders. Hell, the simple fact that there were WORKER'S REVOLTS in the WORKER'S PARADISE should tip you off that something was far worse.

Was it really? They killed two million civilians in Afghanistan, enslaved half of Europe, tested their nukes on civilians, funded terrorists all across the globe, etc. I get that the US was/is bad but USSR was every bit as bad.

>one of the best nations of LATAM

stalenin killed sixty gorillions because he made a pact with satan to take over atlantis, look it up

They didn't really though, after Stalin died it wasn't half as hellish as western propaganda makes it out to be.

Sounds like you got mixed up with the USA, bro.

i'd rather to live in Chile, than in cuba or venezuela.

What did I mix up with the USA? Be specific instead of just memeing.

No, if there is anything I've learned in the Russian History, Balkan History, and Gender, Sexuality, and power in the Soviet Union classes this semester, it's that not even the most left leaning professor can make the Soviet's into the good guys. They can make the US look like and asshole, but outside of sucking Bukharin's dick, they can't turn the USSR into the hero.

If was half-joking because literally everything you said in that post could just be used to criticize America.

Cuba's a nice place.

Quality healthcare and vintage cars for everyone.

>after Stalin died it wasn't half as hellish as western propaganda makes it out to be
Yeah, let's just ignore all of the revolts across the 60's, 70's and 80's. Let's ignore Chernobyl. Let's ignore Afghanistan. Let's ignore Africa. Let's ignore Cuba.

>being this brainwashed
hahhhaahha

Not even close. The US war in Afghanistan killed 30 000 civilians in 15 years, meanwhile the Soviet war killed between 1.5 and 2 million people, carpet bombing the entire country to the stone age. When Bush talked to his staff about bombing Afghanistan they had trouble making a decision since there was barely anything left to bomb.

>Yeah, let's just ignore all of the revolts across the 60's, 70's and 80's
There were 20 revolts in the USSR and the overwhelming majority of them happened in the very early days.

> Let's ignore Chernobyl
Not even gonna deny it. Chernobyl was just a shitshow of having no regard for safety regulations and exactly what you'd expect would happen, happened.

>Let's ignore Afghanistan. Let's ignore Africa. Let's ignore Cuba.
The USSR did literally nothing wrong here.

>I believe exactly what I was told in school and on TV about the cold war.
>Everyone else is brainwashed.