> in Russian Empire peasants are muh poor and starving
> under Soviet rule people exprerience three famines and perpetual deficite of all the important goods
> after USSR collapsed it became apparent that avarage soviet citizen was several times more poor than avarage "capitalist pig"
Srsly, why people still support commies? Are they dump or what?
Most communists aren't tankies. Can we move on from this easy straw man some day?
That's cause it was a degenerate workers state.
t Trostky
Because communism is a completely idealist notion. It's an utopistic pipedream that's extremely difficult, or even impossible to reach while we are still humans living in our current world.
These people are detached from reality, they want to believe in it, they support it, because it feels good. It doesn't matter to them that it doesn't work, it's never worked and that they themselves are no better than the people who tried before. It just feels right, so on they go.
Of course everyone was poor when the USSR collapsed, are you being ironic my man?
I think he's talking about the inherent poverty and lack of goods in the Soviet Union, when compared to capitalistic societies in the West.
Because Russia is such a giant backwater that it requires such a radical, forced movement to have any sort of progress whatsoever.
If Stalin had been a capitalist in charge of Soviet Russia, and could bend the will of the people with ease, Russia would have undoubtedly done much better.
Unfortunately, you cannot force people's hands without a dictatorship under communism/fascism/whatever.
People will argue that "Stalin was good" because of all the "good" he did for Russia, on an industrial and technological level. People will argue that despite millions dying to his retarded cause, he arguably laid the groundwork for Russia to be the power ir is today.
The reality is that if the less-than-human slavic retards hadn't been under such a backwards idea as communism then Russia could be a lot better off, but instead of being practical they got emotional with their idea and now Russia is just one big depressing shithole.
I pity people in Russia almost as much as I fucking despise the apeish cunts.
If you guarantee job, food, home and security things post-soviet union or Russia couldn't do and people don't live like people in the west well they will remember good old days
it seems likely to me that whatever russia did it was gonna be shit
source: every other thing they have ever done
So the famine was the result of poor economic policies, not deliberate depopulation?
> implying communism would work it was only russian that fucked up
most commies celebrate soviet, don't pretend you don't see stalin or lenin thread every time on Veeky Forums
In soviet union in order to obtain a new home you should either have connection with some powerful guys or have to wait in a queue for several years and get a one-room shit-hole in a commie-block
>most communists celebrate soviet
No. Most communists say authoritarian governments are no good.
wasn't implying that.
just that whatever russia gonna try it won't work.
Eee, stuped capitalist pigs forget about WW1, Civil War and WW2
Simple,they are sociopaths.
>after USSR collapsed it became apparent that avarage soviet citizen was several times more poor than avarage "capitalist pig"
What a shock. I mean its almost like Communism isn't about accruing wealth but rather guaranteeing economic equality.
>tankies will blame this on the US/"Zionism"
>What a shock. I mean its almost like Communism isn't about accruing wealth but rather guaranteeing economic equality.
Almost like that is a mutually detrimental goal for every member of society.
>That Ukraine lmao
The problem was not communism. The Empire of Russia had a socialist economy from around 1690 to 1917. When it became a Socialist Republic it came under intense attack from foreign Imperialists and Capitalists.
>be commies
>have doctrine to dismantle capitalism everywhere and kill people who benefit from it
>keep people under oppressive authoritarian rule until you do
>get mad when almost every intelligent person living under communist rule tries to leave if they are able to
>get mad when capitalists try to stop you from putting them into work camps and killing them
Why are communists so dumb?
>sanction USSR to get it to collapse
>USSR collapses
>"See, communism is a failure. It collapsed all by itself because it was so horribly flawed. Also I'm responsible for defeating them so give me a pat on the back." t. Reagan
Commies did indeed have doctrines that involved dismantling Capitalism, but there was no doctrine to kill anyone who benefited from it.
The oppressive rule resulted from the foreign sponsored counter-revolution circa 1918-1923, and the follow-up political, economic, social and military attacks that continued until the 1990's.
If Soviet communism was doomed to collapse why did capitalist nations attempt to destroy it from day one?
I didn't say anyone who benefited from it.
And "foreign sponsored counter-revolution" happened precisely because commies want to dismantle capitalism.
Probably because nobody wanted to be forced to live under a flawed economic system in the first place.
> the biggest state in the world collapses and literally nobody of its citizens gives a fuck
> communist countries fall one by one and in the 21-st century only fucking North Korea is still communist
> MUH SANCTIONS, NEVER BEEN TRIED, IF NOT GORBACHEV AND LIBERALS COMMUNISM WOULD PREVAIL
to hasten the collapse
Cuba's still communist.
Yeah you did. Reread your post. And a plan to dismantle Capitalism does not justify whole-sale theft and murder.
>average wealth
a society in which the Proletariat owns the means of production, thereby creating economic equality, by definition these systems do not support government owning the means of production.
Except for all those poors that got guaranteed standards of living.
It was the same economic system. It was the political system that changed. Russia went from being a socialist Empire to a Socialist Republic.
I did use the word "people", not "anyone", which is correct because communists have killed plenty of people they simply deemed to be "bourgeoisie." And a lot of times those people who others claimed to be bourgeoisie weren't even, they just wore glasses or owned more than an average amount of rice.
>And a plan to dismantle Capitalism does not justify whole-sale theft and murder.
It does when communists are literally planning to do the same to you.
Then why is the flag of the USSR on your fucking wall RIGHT NOW?
Pretty sure most commies like Lenin a lot. Stalin has his fans too but not nearly as much as Lenin.
I've never heard that claim before and a simple search tells me that the Russian Constitution allowed for private property.
en.wikipedia.org
"guaranteed" forced labor with no freedom of movement on the kolkhozy when those peasants were collectivized, yes
You socialists believe in slave labor for the good of "the state". This makes you and the sane world incompatible whether you like it or not.
>inb4 NO U NO U CPAITALISM IS SLAVCERy OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG TU QUOQUE TU QUOQUEEEEEEE
Recent wars don't do well on economy. Reason why Serbia and Bosnia are still shit tier even do they had "better" communism.
self described communist are the most autistic people ever and they cant articulate a point or even shill their worldview at all. ANY debate with one usually boils down into utterly petty bickering over the most obscure and bullshit minutiae as they have this idea that if you dont understand literally every aspect of any sort of communist belief, they you automatically lose, even though they tend to not no much about other systems themselves.
>Wow, you dont even understand all of what Rosa Luxembourg wrote, you lose!
This is something along the lines a debate with one usually ends as. Also, its really really fucking space cadet tier, so anytime someone argues that communism sucks based on a real life example, like Holodomor, or North Korea ect. They will respond with the classic "not muh real communism" They are usually NEETS who spend so much time swimming in dogmatic writings that they cant even grasp the idea that reality is different. Also, I noticed that some of them are so dogmatic, they will praise a certain communist even for doing something god awful that resulted in the deaths of millions of people simply because "its what Marx wrote" They would literally rather stubbornly follow Marxes teachings, even if it causes the deaths of millions, just because the infallible Marx wrote it.
tl;dr-communist are autistic NEET space cadets who are stupid, but think they are smart because they know a lot of shit about an interest of theirs.
>parade around with hammer and sickle flag all the time
>"DUDE WE HATE USSR NOT MUH REAL COMMUNISM!"
Thats the entire point. You cant have mcdonalds and communists don't want mcdonalds. We dont WANT a mustang in every garage and meat 3 meals a day every day. Not that capitalism really provides these things it just tantalizes cuckolds with luxuries.
>communists don't want mcdonalds
>if i call them autistic neets enough, maybe people won't realize I'm not actually even making an argument
>muh fallacy fallacy
if you say 2+2=7 and then I say "no you idiot, 2+2=4" then you cant take away from that, that you in fact are write, and 2+2=7 simply because I called you a mean name while explaining why you were wrong.
But thanks for proving my point about being annoyingly obsessed with semantics
You made no argument whatsoever, just general, baseless claims.
>You made no argument
yes I did. I claimed that communist suck at arguing or convincing anyone of their beliefs because they are autistic and thus lack any sort of people skills and just focus entirely too much on semantics and obscure writings.
you are proving my point btw.
I'm sorry, I was under the assumption we wanted to make convincing arguments. Yes, you did technically make an argument, saying that "communist are autistic NEET space cadets who are stupid", but you see, making a claim doesn't mean you've made a convincing argument. I could just as easily say that Elon Musk is going to Mars because chicken tastes good. A baseless claim such as yours is completely irrelevant.
>you are proving my point btw.
Assuming I'm an autistic, stupid NEET does not prove that all communists are, or that communism is a flawed system.
>Yes, you did technically make an argument
ok, now stop moving the goalpost
As I said, I assumed we were both attempting to make convincing arguments, that is, ones likely to convince the opposing side. As I explained, an argument formed of baseless claims seems unlikely to be convincing. I apologize for any confusion I caused.
My point is, your post here is full of nothing but unsubstantiated claims, and is unlikely to convince anyone of your argument. The reason is that generalization of an entire group is very difficult to provide evidence for due to the problem of induction, and you never even made the attempt.
Thanks Communism!
How do you define socialism? To me it means government ownership of the means of production, not the abolishment of private property.
For example, the Empire of Russia owned all the gold in the ground under its control. Hence it owned all the gold mines, most of transport (barges, wagons, trains) for the ore, the gold smelters and refineries, and the mint that turned the gold into money. it owned the Banks that put the money in circulation. When the Empire failed these resources became the property of the Republic of Russia.
>Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy
While this can mean government ownership of the means of production, it is usually only used in this way when social democrats and the like use it, not communists, because to communists, social ownership should be in common ownership primarily, since communism advocates for the abolishment of private property.
>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the radical social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]
That is more of an endgame definition. The problem is how you get from a socialist country like the Empire of Russia to common ownership? How do you keep the mines (metals, coal, salt, etc.), quarries, oil fields, logging operations, farms, fishing fleets, ports, canals, trains, telephones, telegraphs, etc. operating when no one knows who is running things (ownership)? One way is to have the republic that replaces the empire assume ownership, and then gradually convert its ownership to the workers who make up the majority of the population. You cannot understand communism until you understand imperialism and its relationship to capitalism.
>How do you define socialism? To me it means government ownership of the means of production
That's not the definition of socialism. It means that the means of production are owned by the workers, not the government. A monarch isn't representative of the workers. Also the term "private property" includes the means of production.
Now the definition I gave doesn't apply to any socialist state that I'm aware of, so when the term is applied to states it usually means one that attempts to bring about a socialist society through revolution. Unfortunately, the revolutions have always failed because socialism is ridiculously hard or impossible to implement, and usually starts in terror and ends in catastrophic failure, despite the ideology overall having decent intentions in the end.
You are referring to Socialism, not socialism. The government definition is the most useful, especially in understanding the Russian Revolution of 1917-18, and the counter-Revolution of 1918-1925.
Russia was only a socialist empire by other definitions, not by communist ones. And yes, you are correct, many communists advocate an authoritarian transition to an anti-authoritarian society.
Communism gave the average person a chance to be a part of something greater than themselves. Money is not an indicator of happiness. Most people in a capitalist society are unhappy because they can never have enough money. No matter how much they have, someone has more. They are depressed by the apparent freedom to do something they most likely cannot do anyway; they will never become rich like the famous. When the state says that you cannot be rich it is removing this burden. It's like outlawing the lottery. You weren't going to win the lottery, so you lose nothing, and spend more efficiently.
One can live life without worrying about running the race. Instead of competitors your peers become friends. Imagine life where everyone didn't all secretly hate each other, because no one was better off than any other.
Imagine a song by John Lennon.
The Soviet system had some decent promises, namely guaranteed employment and a pension. These things are extremely difficult to finance effectively without obliterating your economy.
>Bait: The Post
The Russian economy underwent a complete meltdown in the 90s. The USSR's per capita GDP was somewhere around half of the US's. Not great, but not as horrendous as this map.
Celebrating the Soviet Union is like celebrating the French Revolutions for Democracy and Liberal ideology.
Poor, warmongering, genocidal, obnoxiously agressive, uncivilized, soulless nation suffering eternal identity crisis(first they stole the Kievan Rus' history, then they defeated and subjugated another important Rus' cultural centre - Novgorod, claimed to be the "Third Rome", then tried to establish themselves as a proper European state copying the Western art and developements, then realizing how multicultural and diverse is their state they came up with """"USSR"""" abandoning their former flag and culture, after it's pathetic fall they are again lost and clueless so they sperg out). Collectivist minded and servile society with no regard to human life. They don't care about their personal wealth, freedom etc as long as Mother Russia and the Tsar is fine. They lack empathy, incapable of establishing a friendly relations on equal terms. Apart from Moscow and St Petersburg and some oil regions Russia is extremely poor and undeveloped - as the Russians are incapable of producing anything sophisticated almost the entire wealth of the country comes from it's natural resources. Except for the art and architecture directly derived either from the Greeks(all the Orthodox architecture they have horribly bastardized, icons) or Westerners(these fancy palaces in St. Petersburg) they barely have contributed to the culture at all. Considering a very large population their scientific contribution is utterly underwhelming, vastly inferior compared to the Western Slavs. Entire society is subjected to brainwashing propaganda blaming the Americans for everything, making them praise their Tsar Putin and support all the vicious acts of violence and terror. They can't even into geopolitics - Russia still pretends it's 19th century and the best way for the state to succeed is to be egoistic, xenophobic, expansive, imperialistic, overly-nationalistic and authoritarian. Russia is the true cancer of humanity and I sincerely hope it breaks apart as soon as possible.
Addendum: Russia is merely a banana republic, relying on nothing but gas and oil. 140 million nation reduced to the role of extracting the natural resources. And where all the oil money goes? Potyomkin villages, Sochi olympics, Mundial - events which are supposed to build a fake image of wealthy and developed country that Russia certainly isn't. And of course - military power, in order to threaten and invade defiant neighbours and force them to stay in it's sphere of influence - because the soft power of Russia makes the every sane nation in the world to want to be as far as possible of it and it's ingenious ideas like communism. Several years of oil bull market should have made you to invest in other branches, diversify your economy, as the transformation from the soviet model would be less painful. Yet, all the money went to waste. I think someone already linked here an article about a Swedish manager from Volvo who was hired by Lada in Tagliatti. The man couldn't believe that in 21st century an automobile manufacturer is administrated like some kolkhoz. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's a prevailing pattern in most of the Russian companies. And that's a main problem for Russia and Russians. They can't properly address their own issues: anachronistic economy, troubled public health care and addictions(krokodil, opiates), surging rates of AIDS but simultaneously they attempt to impose their dominance (and their sick vision of the world), not being able to accept the fact that the other people want to live normally - "doesn't matter if it's ridiculous, what matter is our supremacy". Why all the former countries of "people's democracy" as soon as they had the chance to break the soviet chains fled under the NATO protection and tied themselves with the West? Because they know what Russian domination really means - and they've had enough of it.
>You cant have mcdonalds and communists don't want mcdonalds.
Why not
Chomsky #btfos a female tankie in 1989
Good chart to see the effects of war, international sanctions, economic transition (and how competently it's implemented) and EU help.
The char shows only world bank records. One thin i've found looking this stuff up is that Serbia's GDP per capita in 1993 was 1/3 of what it was in 1990. Data shown is from 1995 onward.
Economically speaking there was no reason not to let Croatia and Serbia join the EU with Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, and it's a major EU mistake (because now the rest of the balkans are gonna balk for at least 10 more years).
The larger dip in Serbian and Bulgarian numbers at the time of the global economic crisis is mostly due to weaker ties to the EU and the effect on the exchange rate between Serbian currency and the euro which also resulted in a debt spike (because a lot of loans are indexed in euros), and Bulgaria gets 1.7% of GDP from EU funding, while Serbia gets roughly 0.5%.
Also, for more fiddling, you can check it out on google public data, and add/subtract some other countries for comparison (Romania, Moldova, China, Slovenia etc.), i just didn't put them in for the sake of the chart's clarity. China is really important when talking about economic transitioning.
Communists did want cars that were warm and could be delivered within six months. They did want a broad choice of food. They did want bootleg western music. They did want the freedom to criticize communism.
>Americans keep calling socialism communism
>meat 3 meals a day every day
Speak for yourself
Really makes u drink...
Why do commucucks take credit for ending serfdom? It ended in the 1860s before Lenin was even born.
...
Nice revisionist history.
One of the worst famines that occurred didn't even occur when the Soviet Union existed. That famine was in 1921-22. The Soviet Union only was established in 1922. Another one of the bad famines was in 1946-67. It was partially due to drought and war damage, though Stalin's policies were partially at fault. The most serious famine was the one in the early 30s, by far. There were no famines in the general population after the famine of 1946-47. As for consumer goods, there were periodic shortages of certain goods, and many goods were rarely available if available at all, but as I said above, after the mid 1940s or so it wasn't the Mordor the US media portrays it as.
>people were poor after the USSR collapsed
Most people in the former USSR were better off in 1974 than in 1994. When the USSR collapsed, life expectancy decreased, death rates skyrocketed, alcoholism became more common, a few million died from the collapse of the extensive government service network, drug use began to become a serious public health issue despite being nearly nonexistent before, and diseases like HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis became more common after being repressed for decades in most regions.
...
What's sickeningly funny about this is that this isn't from the Ukrainian famine. This image is from British India, during the 1943-44 famine, caused by a capitalist regime.
It's worth noting that two of the famines coincide with either one of history's deadliest civil wars (21-22) or following extensive damage to the country following history's single most destructive theatre of warfare (46-47). In both of these famine coincided with tremendously destructive military conflicts, the only one that can really be pinned on total governmental fuckup is the one in the 30s, which revisionist historians instead prefer to claim was a targeted genocide against Ukrainians even though it also caused famine in regions of the Russian SFSR.
If paradise to you means only basic needs, move to prison:
>warm bed
>food everyday
>showers and toilets
>free books and gym
>free sex
And maybe some propaganda posters on the walls inside the prison, and now you are truly fighting capitalism.