Number of famines in the Russian empire between 1800 and 1917: 2

>fought along 1 road from Warsaw to Moscow
>scorched earth policy burning down everything from food supplies to entire Moscow
>"didn't damage anything"

Uneducated nigger

>How's that relevant

That the civil war was started by the commies so everything bad resulting from it can be directly attributed to commies.

And good job ignoring the fact that a feudal peasant shithole had less famines than the supposedly modern and industrialized USSR.

A country either advances through slow methodical industrialisation with slow but sure social changes, or it takes giant leaps forward advancing what should be decades in years upon the deaths of millions.

That is essentially all 20th century Communism was, a way of forcing a nation to jump forward.

And in the case of China, said Leap Forward caused the county to slip, fall and crash.

Communists didn't start the civil war, counterrevolutionaries did

(You)

The war started because local administration and local army units refused to recognise the coup pulled out by Lenin in Petrograd.

The Civil War ended in 1922. Damage caused by the war lasted a lot longer.

Not an argument.

Well, there was legit crop failure of 1932 and ww2 on the one hand, and on the other it were mistakes of planned economy.

The problem with planned economy is that you don't want to overproduce food, but if something goes wrong (for a number of reasons) you end up with people starving.

None of these reasons is true. You're an idiot.

>Well, there was legit crop failure of 1932 and ww2 on the one hand, and on the other it were mistakes of planned economy.

Since there was no famine in neighboring Poland, the whole blame goes on Soviet policies. Otherwise there would be food even with crop failures.

>None of these reasons is true. You're an idiot.

What an argument!

>Since there was no famine in neighboring Poland
>Since there was no famine in neighboring Poland
>Since there was no famine in neighboring Poland

I remember a time on Veeky Forums when people weren't this retarded.

Except Russia was already making gigantic leaps and bounds in the late 19th century, and with negligible negative effects. The GDP was growing by double digits annually, their agricultural and industrial outputs were booming, there were extensive social reforms and urbanization taking place, they were modernizing extremely quickly and they were on track to be an actual contemporary to western Europe by the 40s. If anything, the Bolsheviks shit the bed.

This is actually a valid point. What's now Western Ukraine was then Poland. There were the same soil, weather and climate patters on the both sides of the border. Therefore a crop failure on one side of the border was more than likely to happen on the other.

Moreover, Poland was deeply embroidered in the Russian Civil War and on top of that, WW1 fronts where also largely fought in Poland. Therefore Poland experienced similar if not larger amounts of infrastructural damage than Russia or Ukraine, which were largely spared WW1 warfare.

Therefore the absence of famine and large scale crop failures in Eastern Poland at the time when they were endemic in Russia and Ukraine is a strong indicator that there were reasons for famines other than just "bad weather" or wartime damage.

>this is what tsarists believe

Yet none of it is true. The "only every second soldier gets a rifle"-meme is actually from tsarist Russia and it is true. Tsarist Russia was industrial shit.

>Tsarist Russia couldn't defeat half of the Central Powers in ww1
>Soviet Union defeated all of fascist Europe in ww2

Also, the Soviet GDP doubled by global comparison (!) from 1917-1939.

Russia was shit, but it grew at astonishing rate just before WW1 after Stolypin's reforms. Part of the reasons why WW1 started was that the German leadership was terrified of Russia becoming an economic superpower in near future.

>the soil in Poland is the same as in the USSR

Since you have never seen a map, I have attached it. You are welcome.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

How did the Anglos manage this?

Is memeing the only thing you can do?

Look at soil map of Ukraine. The western part was Poland before WW2. As you can see, soil in what's today Ukraine are patterned along parallels. Which means that Eastern Poland and Soviet Ukraine shared same soils.

You mean the same colour? Because it certainly isn't the same colour. Other than that the writing is too small.

But it's irrelevant anyway, since 90% of Soviet soil wasn't in Ukraine.

>But it's irrelevant anyway, since 90% of Soviet soil wasn't in Ukraine.

But famines happened in Ukraine.

>You mean the same colour? Because it certainly isn't the same colour. Other than that the writing is too small.

You can see belts of the same color on both sides. Stop lying for once.

>going by the number of famines rather than the total deaths
>implying the USSR was Communist
>post hoc ergo propter hoc

>That the civil war was started by the commies so everything bad resulting from it can be directly attributed to commies.
see

Not real communism.

>going by the number of famines rather than the total deaths

The number of total deaths or deaths relative to the size of population, whether by the state or natural causes was considerably higher during Soviet times than the Russian Empire over the course of the entire 19th century insofar as can be determined..

>But famines happened in Ukraine.

No. The grain was appropriated and distributed centrally. This is why the Ukrainians get so butthurt - they produced enough grain, but it got distributed to other peoples. Either way, someone had to starve.

>>implying the USSR was Communist
here we go....

>someone had to starve

If only they hadn't been in a situation that forced them to collectively share their agricultural produce, which has always caused crop shortages from Jamestown and Massachusetts in early America to modern times in the USSR and China, shortages that always suddenly disappeared after the ending of total collectivization. But no, some people just have to die for the sake of a madman's dream I guess.

>Either way, someone had to starve
So let's starve the guy that actually PRODUCED the food.

Classic parasite logic

>>number of famines in the Russian empire between 1800 and 1917: 2

Lies.

>dis was not real gommunism ok? :-DDD
When will the meme end and people realize communism can't happen?

Slip fall and crash into being the largest producer of consumer goods on earth

If they hadn't collectively shared the food, there would still be a food shortage, it would just be localized to where the food shortage occurred. The number of people who starved would be the same.

>communism can't happen
>yet the USSR was bad because it was communist
really makes you think

>number of famines after 1950: 0

Stalin modernised Soviet farming forever.

>shortages that always suddenly disappeared after the ending of total collectivization.

not collectivising food makes more food suddenly appear?

really got my noggin' coggin'

No, you don't understand. Collectivization of agriculture CAUSES food shortages.

Jamestown in America relied on communal growing of food; add that to the lazy shits out looking for gold all day they didn't get much else done and starvation was common. After each colonist was forced to supply their own food, rates of food shortages dropped dramatically.

In Massachusetts, the Pilgrims had communal farms that could never seem to feed their incredibly small population, and they had to rely heavily on the native tribes for help. After the communal farms were dismantled and land worked privately, the threat of famine never reappeared.

Famine and starvation were major problems in the USSR until the authorities allowed people to tend to their own small plots of land where they were allowed to grow their own food. These dachas became a major part of their owners' lives because they were so damn necessary. Dachas were islands of private ownership in a sea of collectivist bullshit that kept ordinary people alive.

So if you cannot get small groups of people to work hard to produce more for collective goals (as in early America and in localized spots in the USSR like Ukraine), then how the fuck do you expect entire countries to do so? This shit fails every time it is tried, and you flippantly say "oh well?"

You're an idiot.

No smartass, it removes the problem that caused the shortages in the first place.

So the USSR didn't have native Americans that's why they had famines unlike USA?

>No. The grain was appropriated and distributed centrally.

The famine was for two reasons:
1. The state took from peasants too much food.
2. The logistic distribution system failed and much of grain simply rotted away.

In a sane society the peasants are simply allowed to sell their surplus grain which is then distributed either by merchants of some sort of public enterprise. But communism does not leave place for a sane society.

The early colonists did suffer from famines you mong. The whole reason Thanksgiving exists is because the settlers in the north were starving because of their retardation and only the natives' intervention saved them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time

I know you're just trying to be snarky, but you're really just making your collectivist bullshit look even dumber than it already is.

I'm not in support of collectivism though. Were the native Americans collectivist?

They were hunter-gatherers which is something completely different.

Not in the sense that you're thinking of, no. They did recognize private ownership of things (especially of the chief's shit) but many tribes did not often envisage private ownership of things such as land or animals.

>gathering wild corn

So you're saying a collectivized farmer didn't own his clothes and person effects?

>Classic parasite logic

AFAIK it was a miscalculation/mismanagement, because not all grain was appropriated, only some 30%. Apparently Stalin believed Ukraine could make do with less. Check this:

newcoldwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tauger-Natural-Disaster-and-Human-Actions-in-the-Soviet-Famine-of-1931-33.pdf

No, when did I ever even suggest that?

They didn't own or have claim to the fruits of their labor, and thus they had no incentive to do anything beyond the bare minimum required of them. It's pretty simple.

However this
>miscalculation/mismanagement
was deeply rooted in inherent flaws of the Soviet system. This points it well. Plus, there's inherent inefficiency of communal working because farmers are deprived of incentive of gain in exchange for their productive work.

Nope, Stalin believed that the "kulaks" and "polish agents" were hiding grain from him, so they set absurdly high quotas which forced people to hand over their seed grain; and if you didn't like it it was off to the gulag with you

Your reasoning makes no sense. Whether your land is considered "collective" or not, you still have to grow your own food before anyone else can have any of it. So apparently you think collectivist mind control rays made people forget that they needed to eat.

So how is that different from what the Native Americans did? In both cases, the means of production (land and animals) was owned collectively.

>you still have to grow your own food
>your own food

No, you're growing the collective's food, and you're entitled to a portion of it as a member of the collective. You will always received a share of food no matter what, but if you work harder you won't gain anything but a fraction of that work back. Thus is it smarter to not contribute more than the minimum.

>how is that different from what the Native Americans did?
>the means of production was was owned collectively

They did not own land collectively as they did not even think one could own land, but farming plots generally were (iirc) individually tended. They controlled territory for hunting in (so as to prevent other tribes from taking the best game), but animals were not "owned" because they, again, could not conceive of them as being owned. There were also no domesticated animals used by the Native Americans in North America until after the Europeans arrived. So no, they did not own any sort of "means of production" collectively.

This is reading 19th century Marxism back onto people living hundreds of years earlier with their own civilization and ideas of political/economic organization. It's nonsense.

>The number of people who starved would be the same.

It wouldn't have been. People generally tend to be overproduce food - which then gets thrown away. I think the west throws away enough food every year to feed the world's starving population.

Now, to avoid throwing away food (i.e. labour) communist tried to plan around that by taking people from agriculture and putting them into industrialization. Of course, when the argicultural yield falls short due to natural disaster or crop failure you have starvation. This is the main reason for starvation in communist countriest: Trying to outsmart the system and getting fucked by random chance.

>Dachas were islands of private ownership in a sea of collectivist bullshit that kept ordinary people alive.

Not really. The first five-year-term when Khrushchev allowed private grain production was the first time the history of the USSR it had to import grain from Canada. So the agricultural privatization was a total failure.

Agriculture is one of the few industries where collectivization would work nowadays, because it's a "solved" industry - i.e. it requires no further innovation. Same goes for the extraction of natural ressources. With industries like tech it would be a total failure ofc.

I am a fan of Ron Paul too, however, that's the facts. Whever you TRUST a state to control an industry is something else - but that's not different from any other monopoly either.

I remember my grandmother telling me that her neighbour wanted to eat her and same for my grandfather, still they believe mismanagement bullshit that i hear here, i guess first-hand experience doesn't know shit sometimes. It was on purpose with the sole scope of exterminating natives and bring Russians in their place

Going to need sauce on the Krushchev privatization. And no industry is ever "solved," there's always room for improvement.

>Not really.

Actually yes. Dachas were owned by city-dwellers and they helped to solve shortages in cities.

>Not really. The first five-year-term when Khrushchev allowed private grain production was the first time the history of the USSR it had to import grain from Canada. So the agricultural privatization was a total failure.

In Soviet system the outputs were checked at the end of the five-year plan.

Therefore, there was no correlation between privatization and the fall of yelds. Rather, both privatization and importation were concurrent attempts to solve the problem of food shortages.

Also, imported grain went into cities.

As far as I know, privatization was a success because it finally solved the problem of shortages in the countryside, which were endemic during Stalin's times.

>number of famines in the USSR between 1917 and 1950: 6
lmao. I'd like to see a list of these "famines" plural. The only famine of note and the one you can also partly blame the Soviet government for is the holodomor in the 30s.

I assume everything else in those magic numbers is some unspecified event during ww2 when have the country was invaded by a genocidal army.

>but farming plots generally were (iirc) individually tended
And that isn't how "collective" land ownership in the USSR worked? Everyone had their own plot of land to work, but they didn't "own" it.

>Still with his focus on agriculture, Khrushchev set up high for agriculture in the sixth five-year plan, with the proposed development of state farms (sovkhoz) at the expense of the collective farms by grafting the kolkhoz to larger farms. As a result, the number of collective farms declined from 125,000 in 1950 to 69,100 in 1958. Also in 1958 the Machine Tractor Stations (MTS), a state-owned and state-controlled service in renting out tractors and machines to collectives, was abolished, which left the peasants collectives forced to purchase the machines the collective farms need. Agricultural stagnation came about in the 1960s with adverse meteorological conditions and bankruptcy of smaller, poorer peasants unable to maintain and repair the farm machines; the dissolution of the MTS also ruined the agricultural equipment industry and also discredited Khrushchev’s agricultural policies. Due to the disastrous corn campaign and the adverse weather conditions, by 1963 the Soviet Union, traditionally an exporter of grain, was forced to resort to import grain.

econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Economics/Command_Econ/Agriculture/side_by_side_by_side.htm

>And that isn't how "collective" land ownership in the USSR worked? Everyone had their own plot of land to work, but they didn't "own" it.

Nope. This isn't how it worked. Pic related

...

I feel we're going in circles; honest question, are you being dense on purpose?

But in answer to your question, no they did not all have their own plot to work, they had a whole farm to work.

>And no industry is ever "solved," there's always room for improvement.

Yes, but when it comes to wheat production the room for improvement is so minimal, it's negligible. The entire process is almost fully automated, and cheap land is available in excess almost everywhere.

I am not in favor of agriculture collectivization. But I am in favor of collectivizing natural resource extraction and telecommunication, because it's trivially easy and the companies contribute nothing to the market. The telecommunication sector uses technology that's 15 years old and sells its services extremely overpriced - and since Bell Labs it has not driven a single innovation, actually it slows innovation down to milk the customers for every few extra MB/s.

Those are just cases where collectivization works (infrastructure being another example).

lmao great source. A time traveling website designer from 1995 with grade school like bullet points for easy propaganda reading.

There are pointless semantic differences between kolkhoz and sovkhoz. They're both Soviet farms.
> As a result, the number of collective farms declined from 125,000 in 1950 to 69,100 in 1958.
This sentence seems to be the meat of your citation and as far as I can tell this person, who was arguing from an assumed answer they wanted to arrive at, got confused by the name change between kolkhoz and sovkhoz and assumed one was capitalist industry. Not so. Unless you have more direct proof from an actual neutral USSR expert that is straight up saying the USSR had private capitalist farming in the 60s.

Dude, he listed the sources at the end.

He, or rather she, is objectively wrong.

Bennett, M. K. Food and Agriculture in the Soviet Union 1917-48, Journal of Political Economy
Vol. 57

>Those are just cases where collectivization works (infrastructure being another example).

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

capitalism

this thread convinced me commies are complete autist, i would say kill yourselves but you guys already want to starve

OP is saying COMMUNISTS not CONMUNISM you illiterate cuckold

Nice.

>hurr durr why don't I have perfect infrastructure everywhere

get it privatized and you might not have any at all

nice get

Thanks.

Guys
Isn't it obvious?
Kulaks were kucks

>None of these reasons is true. You're an idiot.

This is the hallmark argument of losers everywhere, boiled down to its purest form.

And as it's a losers argument, it's definitely a commie argument.

This is a lie contingent on believing Soviet Ukraine producing enough food. It didn't. It produced way less than the crippled Polish Ukraine.

Your system failed. Stop defending State Feudalism, that universal hallmark of every Communist state that could never achieve its absurd utopia.

What's the difference between a "plot" and a whole farm?

Infrastructure is most efficient when it's run by a monopoly, and collectivization is one way to achieve a monopoly.

Not an argument.

>feed the worlds starving population
Why would we do that. Feed them now in 20 years there will be 100x more to feed.

The only way a communist state can exist is if an AI is in charge of the whole shebang, and humans are in no way allowed to influence or alter its programming once established.

A man or council or congress may be idealistic and pure enough to run a communist state and not be corrupted by the power so granted. But what about the successor? The one after that? Human ambition and greed can lurk in the shadows for decades, for centuries, and all it takes is one person to start the process of decay, the rot of corruption and imbalance that renders the system unsustainable and unrecognizable from its founding ideals.