I'm reading about how Soviet Union constantly neglected agriculture in favor of heavy industry and i just don't get it...

Russia wasn't feudal by the time of revolution. Landlordship can exist for a period, like in Germany or post-colonial India.

Comnunism shouldn't work. It's a historical formation, not a mechanism.

Factories could use free workforce better than fields. Look at China for example.

>they were fairly adamant about communal farming which is very inefficient and difficult to reform.
See, this is something I could've never understood, and I come from a post-Soviet country myself.

>Collective farming is hailed as the best thing ever because communism
>Collectivization itself leads to disastrous results and man-made famines
>Well whatever, maybe now that they're working they'll get better?
>They don't, personal households under goods taxation supply the largest amount of food in some key areas, like eggs
>Instead of supporting them, they're taxed even more and less personal land is allowed to be used
>Then collective farmers start earning set wage regardless of performance just like all Soviet citizens
>Everything collapses even further
>After USSR breaks apart not only Ukraine but even Russia becomes one of the biggest grain exporters in the world

I swear, agriculture in Soviet Union has got to be the biggest case of "la-la-la, I can't hear you" in human history.

Has life improved with the advent of capitalism in your country?

>Don't live in the world's biggest prison, can freely travel
>Better quality goods
>Actually available goods
>Better service quality in general
>State isn't policing you
>No ideology shoved down your throat 24/7
Of course it did. People who think otherwise tend to idealize the past way too much.

Communism: not even once

The answer to that question is yes, regardless of the country

You have to realize Russians are subhumans (and I don't mean it in some edgy /pol/ nazi way, but really). That explains everything.

>>No ideology shoved down your throat 24/7

> The only way for any ideological implementation to work is for it to piggyback on the economic infrastructures built in the previous era of some other ideology

Improved from the destitute 90's era, a time of depression brought on by neo-liberal shock therapy and a hybrid of oligarchic/mafiosi/bandit rule?

Yes, everywhere has improved from that.

Improved from the 70's and 80's, a high point for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus when it came to employment, anti-alcoholism, anti-corruption, police reliability, public transport, public and higher education standards?

No.

State-capitalism
I know it wasn't feudal, I said "basically feudalism" on the basis that it was barely developed beyond feudalism.

>communism
>anti-corruption, police reliability, public transport, public and higher education standards
lol

It was literally "WHO NEED FOOD WHEN YOU HAVE GLORIOUS 15 MM 2x2M STEEL PLATES COMRADE. DO YOU NOT WANT TO HELP GLORIOUS SOVIET MERCAHNT NAVY?"
t. dad worked in a steel mill

How old are you?

What's his ideology?

Communism? In a vanguardist, state-capitalist country, one of the most militarist countries to ever exist?

Where?

Open a book, sweetie.

Vague Russian nationalism and neoliberalism. But not nationalist or neoliberal enough to scare away potential voters for United Russia.

>Open a book, sweetie.
You know what I'm talking about when I say "communism", you retarded piece of shit.

Communism can only work with the absence of specific leaders. If a leadership hierarchy is established, then it no longer can be considered Communism

"the whole world is against our russia"
See pic related, it's a mishmash of contradicting shit, really.

Because that dick waving saved Russia from extinction in Word War II, and you make a whole lot more money making steel than you do removing your own, barely renewable, resources.

You gotta understand that amidst World War II, the entire damned country got up, moved East, and built a center of productivity there on par with the US, pumping out thousands of tanks and planes a month, and the gods only know how much ammunition and artillery. That's what turned the tide of the war for Russia, just sheer unbelievable amounts of determination under a madman who refused to hear "it can't be done".

So no, after that success you aren't going to go back to farming. You're just going to keep making a bigger and better army. And the west gave them every motivation to do so, by basically fucking up every security concern they had to the point where it was clear the destruction of Russia was the west's end intent, and war was inevitable.

And keep in mind for the first half decade and a half of that, only one side of that potential conflict had nuclear bombs, which meant they had to compensate for that with overwhelming conventional force.

It'd be hard to stop that kind of momentum, even if there was any motivation to do so - but there wasn't, and every motivation to keep going.

What about producing some consumer goods for a change?

That's been Russia's ideology since 1941. Which wouldn't be so bad, if they've not been right most of that time.

So what did the Soviets even do with all of that steel anyway? Did they export it? Was there really demand for that much steel within the Soviet Union when large swathes of society were starving and the parts that weren't didn't have access to consumer goods like toilet paper? Seems so absurd.

When the western world has you effectively under embargo? Who you gonna sell to during the cold war? The communist Chinese?

>Which wouldn't be so bad, if they've not been right most of that time.
Do Russian actually believe they've become the biggest country of Earth with defensive wars? Fucking victims boo hoo

Just made the largest mechanized military force the world had ever seen, while waiting for the inevitable war.

...that never happened.

And bankrupted themselves in the process.

How about producing cars or washing machines? So that my grandfather wouldn't have to wait 10 years to buy a car.

Your satellites in Eastern Europe? Africa? India? Latin America? The world is bigger than the West.

That does tend to do that.

But when you think that epic existential war is gonna happen any minute, ya ain't got much choice but to prioritize it.

butthurt commies

every thread

Again, produce cars and washing machines in exchange for what? For whom?

If they could have traded with the west, that'd make sense, but for the most part they couldn't, and there was, at the time, no one else who could give them significant resources in exchange for anything they could produce.

Meanwhile they feel that the US is going to invade any day now, so guess what they put all their effort into.

The US, of course, was doing the same damn thing, but it had a network of profitable nations it could trade amongst, in addition to extremely lopsided trade with nearly the entire western hemisphere.

The USSR actually produced more cars than Russia does now.

The problem was the USSR had a really shitty bureaucracy that made the allocation of things like cars needlessly complicated.

>Again, produce cars and washing machines in exchange for what? For whom?
For the people, retardo.

>The USSR actually produced more cars than Russia does now.
Cool story, bro. What's that got to do with what I said?

Latin America belonged to the US - for all the USSR's pale efforts to make it otherwise.
And none of those people had any cash, nor could they send Russia more food than it was already producing in exchange for cars and washing machines.

There was no first world that Russia could trade with, kinda by definition, and the third world was all hijacked by the west.

Russia's ability to project power and thus build an economic empire the way the US did was also extremely limited, due to the lack of warm water ports. (And the US made it top priority to maintain that isolation.) Thus, even if Russia could have traded abroad with anyone worth trading with, they'd almost no way to receive or export goods in any efficient way, come winter.

You said
>How about they produce some cars

And I pointed out that's exactly what they did, the reason your granda had to wait for ages to get a car is entirely unrelated to a lack of cars available.

In exchange for what? Like Russia is going to jeopardize its existence, to give the people washing machines? The army had priority as they felt the west could invade any day, and the west made damn sure they kept thinking that, pretty much from the time FDR kicked the bucket on.

>3:1 manpower advantage in Europe
>Ivan is good boi, he just defends from dat ebil West n shiet

>Manpower advantage
Which means exactly fuck all if you don't have the hardware to compete.

Didn't say it was smart, or good, just from the leadership's perspective, they didn't have much choice but to prioritize the army, in addition to having no real way to trade with anyone with real resources on the outside.

If the leadership had decided that survival wasn't enough - that it also had to be worthy of survival, it might have been another story. Though, in the long run, unless the more relaxed stance caused the west backed down, they still would've collapsed eventually.

>giving your people cars and washing machines weakens the security of the country
wew

Seriously USSR had some retarded priorities

How about instead of pushing your conventional forces to the max, building thousands of tanks and guns and whatnot you focus on building preemptive nuclear arsenal while minimizing your conventional troops at the same time? You know, like the US did in the 50s?

What point is there in keeping huge fuckton of army when you have nukes? Do you seriously think anyone would even plan on invading the other side, while knowing their country might get obliterated by nukes as soon as they roll with the tanks across the border?

>the reason your granda had to wait for ages to get a car is entirely unrelated to a lack of cars available.
The reason was that the market only had Russian cars (and a couple other Eastern Euro cars).

That it still loads of cars being produced every year.

Totalitarian states needs to be militarized. Young men need to go through several years of conscription so that every notion of "I might be a human being" could be beated out of them. The masses need to be scared and fed lies how the enemies are going to attack them any time now and that the good leader is taking care of them and they need not worry they don't have basic shit.

Apparently not nearly enough. All of the communist states needed to wait a decade to get a car, for which you pay up front.

Oh wow, 50 million cars for half a century for 400 milion people.

As I say, because of shitty bureaucracy.

The fact that Trabants were exported all over the place yet you still had to wait a decade to get one in East Germany is a testament to this.

What would even be the point in bothering to produce more cars?

less funding in public transportation

But more funding in cars, petrol stations and natural resources.

>implying Russia lacks in resources

>Implying wasting the most valuable thing they have on saving people from having to take the bus to work is worth it.

wasting resources>wasting money

Oil is better than money by a vast margin.

Not to mention they'd just wind up wasting money anyway on building cars, petrol stations and investing more heavily in extracting natural resources.

you can profit on cars you know

You can also profit on public transport without expending more oil than you absolutely have to.

>implying public transportation isn't a huge waste of oil
desu i would rather buy my own petrol for my own transportation anytime than have the state waste it on public utilities i don't even use regularly.

Because in order to survive, they needed to protect what few interests they had abroad, and additionally, needed to do that to win support to get out of a situation where they constantly had to prepare militarily for the west, and that meant aiding allies in the only way they could - militarily. Those operations tend to not involve nuclear exchanges.

And nukes are actually ridiculously fucking expensive to make and maintain, so it wouldn't have saved them much anyways. Plus, as far as their adversary was concerned, they had enough to blow up the world a dozen times over. Anything beyond once is rather redundant as a deterrent. The US made it quite clear it was willing to continue to wage the war, even after mankind was doomed anyways. (If you wanna talk about retarded priorities...)

I'm actually a farmer here in the UK. At least I work on my family farm.

In the West farms are run my "Farm Managers" who are mostly practical people, often children of farmers (like myself) or people who have studied the subject which requires internships. We are often advised by agricultural scientists who tests ideas in trial plots, actually another farmer a few miles from me is testing agri-forestry, the inter planting of useful tree crops in fields. I basically do what has worked well for the last several years. My nextdoor neighbour runs a very different system to me which works for him. I think it's stupid and he'd be better of doing what I do but I got to admit he survives as a farmer (a hard thing to do) and grows a lot of food for people which is the important thing. I THINK I know more than him but I have not seen his balance sheet. Leaders in communist countries thought they knew better than farming families who have HUNDREDS of years of experience between them. EGOS.

One important thing which leftist and communist protest against is the Western policy of OVERPRODUCTION which is facilitated by subsides. People day it wastes money and uses more land than is needed for agriculture. The TRUTH is that this is a VERY SMART POLICY. Thoughout most human history famines have been the biggest killer. But by manipulating the market Western governments have massively increases production and there are many warehouses in the UK storing excess grain. Once upon a time one bad harvest and people starved. Now one bad harvest and people have to pay more for food but don't starve. OVERPRODUCTION IS A SMART POLICY. But there are so many in power who want to remove this.

Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

> Leaders in communist countries thought they knew better than farming families who have HUNDREDS of years of experience between them. EGOS.
This is very true.

Massive famines in China could have been prevented were the state wise enough to just let the farmers do their jobs rather than giving dumb advice like to turn up useless land so the topsoil was wasted and you were expected to plant food in rocks.

Also did making them communal reduce production? That's what I'd expect, every farm needs a leader who TELLS people what to do. Even if they don't produce the best yield and manage the soil best at least everyone is moving in the same direction.

In the UK I have had slack from people because I will inherit a 1200 acre farm. I understand this is not FAIR. But because of zoning laws and such I will be FORCE to farm it and if I can't do it for a profit I will be forced to sell (after multiple years of losses). I am not sure if this is state run capitalism or what but it's a good system that benefits society and the people who FEED society so I approve.

China didn't collectivize farms the same way Stalin did during the five year plan, they still had hierarchy but it was instituted in a way similar to what the Soviets were first supposed to be.

From what I can tell collectivization went a lot smoother in China than in other communist countries, even though farming got fucked up for other reasons anyway.

I know about the sparrows and the famine and that's about it.

You miss an important point.

Prior to WW2, the car ownership in the United States, and familiarity with machines in general , thanks to that lazy, consumerist culture, prepared Americans to be drafted en masse and dropped comfortably into an industrial army. Training times for pilots and tank crews was far less than what it was in Japan, where car ownership was severely limited. This compnded Japan's difficulties in replacing losses as the war prgressed, as they were running out of people who had any familiarity operating any type of machinery at all, whereas Americans could easily pluck even some kid from the middle of Kansas who already had years of experience in running and maintaining even a Model T to replace losses as the war dragged on. The USSR's focus on the military at the expense of consumer goods served as a chokepoint for the profusion of basic skills that could have been crucial in mobilizing people for another war.