We know Communism is bad for the economy. we have well documented evidence from every country that has tried it...

We know Communism is bad for the economy. we have well documented evidence from every country that has tried it. Both in the present and from contemporary sources throughout the ideology's lifetime.

Yet there is an abbarition. An event that cuts against the grain.

In 1940, the Soviet army controlled more than half of all tanks on the planet. This, by itself, might have been nothing but paranoid stockpiling. Certainly, that wouldnt be out of character for Stalin.

In 1941 the Soviet Union was caught flat footed and these were all destroyed. It was a complete chatastrophe and the reds were left to defend their capitol with british loaners and popguns.

During 1942 they reclaimed their spot as not only the number 1 tank foece on the planet, but we're in fact back to controlling an actual majority of the tanks which existed.

So, with fully a quarter of their nation in enemy hands, the Soviet economy was out producing the combined economies of the rest of the planet. Outproducing them by a wide enough margin to overcome their own staggering combat losses and everyone else's held reserves.

What happened?

The Soviet Union is like huge man. Both in terms of area and resources. Like...HUGE.

You ever consider that their investment in making tanks was much larger proportionally than that of other nations? I'm not sure I understand the problem/question here. They clearly devoted a large percentage of their government budget on tanks. The US and others just had other priorities I guess. Like aircraft.

The US gave them copious infusions of every resource they were missing and remade all of their factories on more efficient American designs.

The UK also helped.

Nice meme

>The US gave them copious infusions of every resource they were missing and remade all of their factories on more efficient American designs.
That was later

Nice ideology

>eat grass to not die
>make such shit cars the countries you export them too melt them for the steel
>have grocery stores so barren people regularly mistake them for furniture stores
>more production capacity than the rest of the planet

One of these really doesn't fit.

Land lease happened

It's easy to build stuff in a wartime economy, where every single factory is converted to the war effort, and your allies ships in thousands of tons of industrial grade steel to produce the weapons of war with

>We know Communism is bad for the economy
China would disagree

Communism by definition has an excellent post-scarcity economy.

Centrally planned autocratic economies that claim to be socialist are bad, but not even that bad because the USSR was able to be a world power even after getting ravaged by war and starting out as a relatively poor country. However, they're good during war, which is why countries in war start rationing goods and organizing industrial effort towards war.

What hasn't actually happened is large scale giving control of the means of production to labor.

>china is communist

Do people actually believe this?

No it wouldn't.

I'm pretty sure that America was producing more tanks. Also don't forget about aircraft they were also making.

Just move all your factories to Siberia where the Germans can't touch you.

A little known fact:

> But the futility of communism has been overblown. It actually was quite successful at helping a war-torn Russia catch up with the west in the early days of the Soviet Union. If you compare, for instance, the development of Mexico and the Soviet Union from 1913 until the year the Berlin Wall fell, “the Soviet Union’s growth over the period of communism put Mexico’s to shame,” according to Charles Kenney, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. He points out that Soviet income per capita was 46% greater than Mexico’s in 1989, compared to just 1% larger in 1913.

The economic system is irrelevant, its the people that populate it. Fucking North Korea has got its shit together better than most of sub-Saharan Africa.

>North Korea has got its shit together better than most of sub-Saharan Africa.
By what standard?

>the soviet union was better than mexico

Congratulations?

Same thing that happened in the US. Manufacturing turned to war time manufacturing. People who used to make cars made tanks. People who used to make commercial planes made fighter planes. People who used to make screwdrivers made bullets.

Society is stable. There are no constant civil wars or tribal insurgencies. People may not be swimming in wealth, but its obvious that they're not facing huge famines every decade like many African states.


Mexico has oil and capitalism yet it was not richer per capita than a socialist state. It's implied by mainstream economists that anything less than ultra-capitalism will do little nothing to accelerate your economic growth

The Soviet union also had a larger population, more resources, and more global influence than Mexico. You're putting all the responsibility of development on leadership and ignoring tons of more important things.

>its obvious that they're not facing huge famines
Are you familiar with the situation in North Korea at all?

>Society is stable. There are no constant civil wars or tribal insurgencies. People may not be swimming in wealth, but its obvious that they're not facing huge famines every decade like many African states.
The norks have the benefit of being a homologous society that gets millions in aid from China.

>people's republic

A quarter of sub-Saharan Africa has tried communism to some degree though.

They ate their kids in the 90s and threaten with nukes and war every single year for To pressure the UN into sending more food aid