When you think about, despite all the negatives and loss of life and other shit...

When you think about, despite all the negatives and loss of life and other shit, state built by Stalin was pretty robust.
Neither Khruschev nor Brezhnev did anything to fix problems, in fact they created new problems, yet Soviet state lived on.
And even in 80's, Gorbachev, despite his best intentions, failed in both political and economic liberalization.
If more moderate politicians like Gromyko or Ligachev were in power instead, they would pursue more moderate reforms which would probably work better. Pursuing both economic and political liberalization was too much.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that the idea that Soviet Union was doomed from the beginning is pretty shitty.

>communist
>not doomed from the beginning
making me think here

What problems did Stalin fix

>state built by Stalin was pretty robust.

>robust
>Lasts less than 50 years after his death

When you say Soviet Union, do you mean what it stood for or the actual state itself with all of the territory?

>Neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev did anything to fix problems
Khrushchev tried to reform civil service by transferring officials to different positions. He also liberalized the political climate somewhat (e.g. closing down the GULAG, not killing thousands of political opponents, and allowing some dissident activity). Brezhnev raised living standards initially, brought overall stability, and eased Cold War tensions between the US and USSR.

Despite his fondness for forced labor and murder of his own citizens, he built up industry, raised living standards, and turned a war-torn country into a superpower despite the fact that the USSR lost 16% of its population and much of its infrastructure in WWII.

would have happened faster without restrictions on trade and inefficient state planning

Prove it.

Not that poster but Russia had already undergone significant industrialisation under Nicholas II (the social upheaval caused by this industrialiastion/urbanisation partly resulted in the revolution)

WW2 only happened because Stalin made a secret pact with Hitler. There is no way to make Stalin a net positive for Russia. Besides that, Russia was already a superpower in 1900 so saying that Stalin "made Russia a superpower" is stupid.

>The goal of communism is imperialistic state building and power.

I thought that was the complete opposite?

It was over the moment Khrushchev denounced Stalin.

what's wrong with you

Get the fuck off this board

>Besides that, Russia was already a superpower in 1900 so saying that Stalin "made Russia a superpower" is stupid.
Russia was a Great Power, not a superpower. The concept only emerged after WWII because the USA and USSR had an unprecedented ability to project power.

>great man theory
Combat your liberalism comrade.

>Russia was already a superpower in 1900

Any banana republic was a better power, than Russia.
Russia went full nigeria right at the start of XX-century.

Preferential flows of french capital disagree with you.

>Bend over to french and english banks

Absolute state of "nationalistic" monarchy.
No wonder bolsheviks succeeded in Civil war.

Have you considered that the purges and whatever of stalin fucked up the political system of USSR so badly that it would have taken decades or a century to fix it?

Trotsky.
Any attempt at the permanent revolution would have destroyed the USSR.

Communism does not work.

Really? The state lasted less than 50 years and you call it robust? The guy couldn't even bring his people food and toilet paper.

It ultimately fell because of misguided policies. As I said in OP, I don't blame Gorbachev, but USSR fixing it's issues was quite possible.
I'm not saying it would achieve communism by now, but it could've been a more socialist China.
What wasn't possible is pursuing both bad economic policies and liberalization.