Why was Russian industrialization so successful after WW1? From an agrarian society...

They did better than England, France, or Germany did despite having industrial capitalist economies for much longer times.

The key to Russias success was the planned economy, if the state is in control of the economy there is no chaos inherent to the market thus all resources are used in the most efficient way. In the USSR most resources were used on the military due to fear of being invaded by capitalist powers but despite that they still succeeded in raising the standard of living and cultural level of a backwards, feudal country.

The NEP on the other hand was simply legalizing capitalism for a short amount of time in order to give the still feudal elements incentive to produce food. It was important for about 8 years but should have been ended sooner. If collectivization started sooner it wouldn't have been rushed and less mistakes would have been made causing unnecessary deaths.

>tankies believe this

>They did better than England, France, or Germany did despite having industrial capitalist economies for much longer times.
You mean it is easier to improve when you're starting at 0, then when you're already strong? Whoa.

None of those other countries gained the title "superpower". The difference is that the USSR had a planned economy.

> starting at 0

>technological superpower
Copying the designs of Western nations and making shittier versions of them that break down all the time isn't a technological achievement.

From Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed, written in 1936

The vast scope of industrialization in the Soviet Union, as against a background of stagnation and decline in almost the whole capitalist world, appears unanswerably in the following gross indices. Industrial production in Germany, thanks solely to feverish war preparations, is now returning to the level of 1929. Production in Great Britain, holding to the apron strings of protectionism, has raised itself 3 or 4 per cent during these six years. Industrial production in the United States has declined approximately 25 per cent; in France, more than 30 per cent. First place among capitalist countries is occupied by Japan, who is furiously arming herself and robbing her neighbors. Her production has risen almost 40 per cent! But even this exceptional index fades before the dynamic of development in the Soviet Union. Her industrial production has increased during this same period approximately 3½ times, or 250 per cent. The heavy industries have increased their production during the last decade (1925 to 1935) more than 10 times. In the first year of the five-year plan (1928 to 1929), capital investments amounted to 5.4 billion rubles; for 1936, 32 billion are indicated.

If in view of the instability of the ruble as a unit of measurement, we lay aside money estimates, we arrive at another unit which is absolutely unquestionable. In December 1913, the Don basin produced 2,275,000 tons of coal; in December 1935, 7,125,000 tons. During the last three years the production of iron has doubled. The production of steel and of the rolling mills has increased almost 2½ times. The output of oil, coal and iron has increased from 3 to 3½ times the pre-war figure. In 1920, when the first plan of electrification was drawn up, there were 10 district power stations in the country with a total power production of 253,000 kilowatts. In 1935, there were already 95 of these stations with a total power of 4,345,000 kilowatts. In 1925, the Soviet Union stood 11th in the production of electro-energy; in 1935, it was second only to Germany and the United States. In the production of coal, the Soviet Union has moved forward from 10th to 4th place. In steel, from 6th to 3rd place. In the production of tractors, to the 1st place in the world. This also is true of the production of sugar.

Tell that to Vietnam who used USSR tech to defeat the US

Always remember that 90% of their trains were made in the USA

>implying China would be colonizing the planet without the help of US and Nixon/R'feller since the 70s
Rockefeller/Nixon literally created superpower China and the US continued to transfer the wealth and future of the west to China
would china be what it is today solely based on china's abilities and without western transfer of wealth and technology?

US is China's greatest ally. if it was not for the US, China would still be a country based on subsistence farming.
US literally created superpower China...
Nixon/Rockefeller birthed superpower China and the US continued to transfer the wealth and future of the west to China
china would not be what it is today solely based on china's abilities and without western transfer of wealth and technology

China's rise was due to a transfer of wealth from the west.

>murica transfer of wealth/technology/industry to poor rural china
>murica create power strong china
>murica claim a strong china a problem
>murica plans on fighting strong china with totalitarian TTP eroding more citizen rights
>not creating a scapegoat to implement totalitarianism

the power brokers transferred:
-literally all the financial funds of US workers to China,
-transferred technology and jobs to China
-hyperinflated the housing so that only the Chinese (recipients of western funds) could afford the housing

the transfer of funds was done involuntarily without the consent of the owners of the funds
the power brokers took western funds sitting in banks and invested all of that in China.

all that wealth transfer was from your pockets. the private funds in bank accounts, the housing assets, the jobs, all transferred by corporate USA without your agreement...

By about the year 2000 Communist China will be a “superpower” built by American technology and skill
-Sutton 1980

"America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones"

USSR wouldnt have been the monster it was if the US industrialists didnt transfer their industry to USSR ~100 years ago. Ford, GM... all setup factories in USSR thinking it was good for business.

the Soviets then kicked out and gulag'd the americans and kept the industries for free without paying a cent to the western industrialists

globalism: pretty fuckin retarded

How America Helped Build The Soviet Machine
americanheritage.com/content/how-america-helped-build-soviet-machine

How We Built the Soviet Might
ashbrook.org/programs/citizens/publications/books/no-left-turns-contents/soviet-might/

history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-signs-agreement-with-soviet-union

Is this a hot new pasta?

I'm going to give it to you, you at least waited for replies before instantly copying your pastas after the thread was made

That's total bullshit. The reason so much has been invested in china is simply because the price of labor there is much lower. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy to create a totalitarian government.

we traded access to the world financial system (WTO membership was the prize) to china in return for "special economic zones" (cheap labor, no regulations, no export tariff) and a market for T-bills.
this required some coordination in the ruling class but did not require secret societies. it's easy to connect the two because a lot of boston brahmin fortunes (including the skull & bones endowment) came from the opium trade in china.

>They did better than England, France, or >Germany did despite having industrial >capitalist economies for much longer times.

They also had a larger population and far more in the way of natural resources. When there is a massive amount of inputs, a massive amount of output is to be expected. However, if we normalize to input size, Soviet productivity and efficient were both awful compared to the developed capitalist countries, which is why their economy effectively stagnated when they hit diminishing marginal returns.

>The key to Russias success was the planned economy

Which is why, at the end, Japan had a higher GDP then they did.

>They did better than England, France, or Germany
Not on any per capita basis.

Well, you would be surprised how much a serf is able to accomplish with a gun to his head and without giving away ressources for useless shit like food or clothes. It is especially great when you have truckloads of them and do not even need to pay them because they are dead after 2 months anyway. A true masterplan.

>to describe it as agrarian is wrong

Except it isnt fuckwit. If you compare the absolute landmass and natural ressources to the industrial coverage you are barely above a developed african country even today.

>to defeat the US
1,000,000 deaths vs. 50,000 deaths. We upheld our end of the bargain and got them to sign a peace treaty after we bombed Hanoi into gravel with Operation Linebacker. It's not our fault commies are backstabbing cunts that went back on the agreement.

You can thank two niggas named Witte and Stolypin. The revolution, civil war and war communism (NEP was a brief respite followed by the Five Year Plan and collectivization which caused more chaos) fucked the economy up so badly that they were just getting back up to speed by WWII.

t. studied Russian history unlike you tankie faggots

Agriculture was the majority of GDP and peasant farmers were 3/4 of the population, describing it as agrarian is perfectly accurate.

The Army of the Republic of Vietnam suffered 254,256 recorded combat deaths between 1960 and 1974, with the highest number of recorded deaths being in 1972, with 39,587 combat deaths.[40] According to Lewy, ARVN suffered between 171,331 and 220,357 deaths during the war.[13][41] R.J. Rummel estimated that ARVN lost between 219,000 and 313,000 deaths during the war.[19]

Most of that million were civilians too. Another 500,000 children were born with birth defects from the agent orange campaign, do you want to count those too?

The official US Department of Defense figure was 950,765 communist forces killed in Vietnam from 1965 to 1974. Defense Department officials believed that these body count figures need to be deflated by 30 percent. In addition, Guenter Lewy assumes that one-third of the reported "enemy" killed may have been civilians, concluding that the actual number of deaths of communist military forces was probably closer to 444,000.[13]

> 1930
more like 1924 or 1926

>if the US industrialists didnt transfer their industry to USSR ~100 years ago.
just like Tsarist Russia, Italy and the US relied on industrial espionage and technological expertise of of British and French engineers, scientific knowledge or other tech/knowledge transfers to kickstart their industrialization? This is how history works

>after WW1
You mean before. After WW1 they didn't get to pre-WW1 levels until like 1928.

>fucked the economy up so badly that they were just getting back up to speed by WWII.
russian economy was back to prewar size by mid 1920s brainlet

>[sarcasm]

Think this through: The Bolsheviks were attempting control since 1917. Both heavy and light industrial sectors didn't reach 1917 levels until after 1928. So communism directly stagnated Russia by more than ten years. Science didn't begin until Stalin personally directed them too, in 1927. NEP had disallowed scientific advancement altogether. Then there's the problem of agriculture, that is, the Soviet Union was never an agricultural power. The famine of 1921-22 proved that when 5-7 million people died, and merely a decade later another 4-9 million people died. The worst famines Russia had was as the USSR despite having the Ukraine in it's hands. Collectivism had already proven not to work when the Russian empire tried it, but the bolsheviks wanted it but without personal incentive. A recipe for disaster, not to mention the famine of 46-47 or their importing food to cover for essential shortages during the cold war.
>just like Tsarist Russia, Italy and the US relied on industrial espionage and technological expertise of of British and French engineers
Everyone commits industrial espionage but it's worth nothing that the Russians had a tank with five times more engine power than the Mark IV and a plane with a wingspan longer than a 747.

You're completely ignoring the civil war which retarded production since nearly all of the skilled workers joined the red army.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921–22

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–33

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946–47

arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1148.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina

You're ignoring that the communists initiated the war that murdered 7-12 million people, suspended human rights, and issued the Prikaz no 1 that caused the Russian army to unionize and thus become an effective fighting instrument against the central powers. And you mean unskilled laborers.

Hundreds of Millions of people lifted out of subsistence level farming with the added Industrial output, never mind the educational and research advances from facilities built in the region, contributing to the enrichment, enlightenment, and elevation of the human condition across the entire globe?

Good.

lmao this just isn't true
lol dude where do you get your Soviet history from? Trotsky? it's showing

The total combat casualties of the war were about 3 million divided evenly between the Red and White armies. Thus they "murdered" about 1.5 million combatants.

After like decades of slow but steady development from the 60s onwards

The people most motivated to fight in the red army came from the cities and were largely industrial workers. They needed to replace those people who died which took time and energy, especially given the fact that an education system had to be built from scratch.

>The total combat casualties of the war were about 3 million divided evenly between the Red and White armies
Sauce?
>There were an estimated 7,000,000–12,000,000 casualties during the war, mostly civilians.
>The Russian Civil War has been described by some as the greatest national catastrophe that Europe had yet seen
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

>lol dude where do you get your Soviet history from? Trotsky? it's showing
lmao no kidding! The leftypol people on here are more determined to cover up communist atrocities than the actual communists themselves

Why are you assuming that the civilian casualties aren't split evenly between the White and Red armies? There's well documented evidence of pogroms and other genocidal activities on the part of the whites.

also if you just look at that same page on wikipedia it shows the military casualties on both sides.

Britain was easily a superpower during the 19th century and early 20th century up until about 1930.

>The Bolsheviks were attempting control since 1917
key word is "attempting". Siberia, Ukraine and Southern Russia were off limits till 1920. they also didn't grab power till late 1917 and hadn't consolidated their base of power until many months later.

>So communism directly stagnated Russia by more than ten years.
You conclude this, how? Russia lost tons of industry and raw resources because of losing Finland, Baltic states and Poland, which causes profound economic dislocation in itself. Then you have marauding white armies making several devastating pushes to moscow over the course of the civil war. You have profound food shortages and crises from the White's control of southern russia, you have a population already weakened from WWI shortages.

>NEP had disallowed scientific advancement altogether.
I'm doubtful, unless you can point me to a source. Among the first acts of the bolsheviks was to dedicate funding to sciences afaik. Tsarist funding of science was paltry in the extreme.

> The famine of 1921-22 proved that when 5-7 million people died, and merely a decade later another 4-9 million people died. The worst famines Russia had was as the USSR despite having the Ukraine in it's hands.
I agree those were shitshows, but had several motives, even if the methods of extraction were sinister in the extreme. First, you need to keep urban populations fed in the Civil War. You need grain exports to pay for industrial equipment and expertise from the west (a policy identical to tsarist state). You need workers to man your urban industries, and agricultural dislocation succeeds in providing manpower. You also have an ideological distrust for the peasant class, so you care little for their welfare in your economic calculations. This is confirmed by peasant behavior (what we'd say is natural economic behavior in response to incentives) of raising prices of grain during shortages and hoarding grain to drive up prices even more, reinforced by soviet coercio

Per capita it wasn't that impressive.

>Tsarist funding of science was paltry in the extreme.
Did the Tsar have literally thousands of biologists imprisoned and/or shot for believing that evolutionary theory applied to plant life?

The problem I have with people discussing Russia's industrialization is it generally devolves into "Look at these production numbers my dude". I'd say truly looking at Russia's modernization one would also have to look at the Russian society as a whole and further than how many poods of sugar they produced. Russia's national income in 1913 was only half of Germany's and 1/4th of Britain's. Proportionally Russia was equivalent to basically Austria-Hungary somewhere, proportionally I mean by population. It could have industrialized much better than it did, or maybe not. To add, 50% of Russia's machine parts were imported and roughly 75% of the Russian population was still doing agrarian labour in 1913. I'm not saying Russia was a backwards shithole, but at the same time it wasn't some super duper monster emerging from the shadows who was about to annihilate everyone, the Economic depression of 1899 (or somewhere 1898 don't remember exactly) also showed that once foreign investments stopped flowing, Russia's industrial growth started to grind to a halt.

The difference is that they never really fought anybody on their same level. USSR fought against several great powers as well as a civil war and still came out in second place to the US.

Can't seem to find the economic depression screenshot I took, but I'll try and find it if I can.

So you'd rather focus on the thousands killed by the whites rather than the millions killed by the reds? The entire revolution was a communist idea, so none of it would've happened if the communists weren't around to betray their countrymen. Makes me glad they killed more of themselves than even Nazis.
Exactly. Completely preventable. And the communists did it to... Ban religion? Free speech? Steal peoples property and put it under the dictate of an idiotic mass? Geniuses ruined Russia. Russia had a chance before the communists came.
>they also didn't grab power till late 1917 and hadn't consolidated their base of power until many months later
WRONG. Prikaz no 1 proves they had political clout since the beginning of 1917 and were willing to use it to destroy the country even indirectly if possible.
> Russia lost tons of industry and raw resources because of losing Finland, Baltic states and Poland, which causes profound economic dislocation in itself. Then you have marauding white armies
The white army was reconquering it's own lands. Those were white army lands to begin with but you act like the reds were the ones already in power. Nice trick there. Communists? Wanting piece? Dislocating? Let's talk more about communist aggression:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_westward_offensive_of_1918–19

>I'm doubtful, unless you can point me to a source
It's right above you. Look here The pdf on unconventional science in the USSR beginning in earnest in 1927.

I'm going to need sauce on these claims:
>Among the first acts of the bolsheviks was to dedicate funding to sciences
>hadn't consolidated their base of power until many months later

Now let's talk about why the famine of 21-22 happened:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
>A black market emerged in Russia, despite the threat of martial law against profiteering. The rouble collapsed and barter increasingly replaced money as a medium of exchange[9] and, by 1921, heavy industry output had fallen to 20% of 1913 levels. 90% of wages were paid with goods rather than money. 70% of locomotives were in need of repair, and food requisitioning, combined with the effects of seven years of war and a severe drought, contributed to a famine that caused between 3 and 10 million deaths.[10] Coal production decreased from 27.5 million tons (1913) to 7 million tons (1920), while overall factory production also declined from 10,000 million roubles to 1,000 million roubles. According to the noted historian David Christian, the grain harvest was also slashed from 80.1 million tons (1913) to 46.5 million tons (1920).

>The problem I have with people discussing Russia's industrialization is it generally devolves into "Look at these production numbers my dude".
Indeed, which is why it's also useful to look at per capita numbers since Russia is a very large country both in territory and population.

Found it,

I agree, I posted the consumption of goods per head "like coal" and whatnot right below the post you replied to. Which is why I basically said Russia was proportionally equivalent Austria-Hungary basically

If the whites never fought back and invited foreign powers to invade there wouldn't have been a civil war. Same goes for the french revolution, if the monarchy never invited foreign powers to intervene in their own country there wouldn't have been such a regrettable loss of life. Russia was a backwards shithole where most people lived as poor, destitute peasants and they wanted a better future. They had nothing to lose.

Horsepower is another thing I want to pay attention to.

>it wasn't some super duper monster emerging from the shadows who was about to annihilate everyone
The German General Staff clearly believed otherwise. They were telling the Kaiser that if Russia's economic growth was permitted to continue, the country (Russia) would be essentially impossible for Germany to defeat in a potential war. I don't accept the premise that Germany deliberately started WW1 (Austria-Hungary was more to blame for that), but it is well-documented that they (specifically the German military) were terrified of Russia's industrial growth, especially as far as railroads were concerned, and that this put them on edge and made them less willing to wait for a diplomatic solution during the July crisis.

The 1917 Revolution was supported primarily by industrial workers, not peasants. If anything, peasants were the group that were most resistant to the new order because they fucking hated the Bolsheviks constantly taking their grain. Peasants also tended to be religious, and the Bolsheviks weren't fond of religion in general.

What books are you using?
>They were telling the Kaiser that if Russia's economic growth was permitted to continue, the country (Russia) would be essentially impossible for Germany to defeat in a potential war
This. According to Brusilov's "A Soldiers Notebook:1914-1918", Germany would be fully mobilized economically by 1915 but not Russia until 1917(the same year of Bolshevik action). Germany knew that. That's why they had made preparations put into practice since late 1916. Communism was the weapon that worked.

cont.
coercive extraction methods of soviets to get grain and feed the city. on top of this, your peasant class is huge, 90% of the population at least, and is subject to almost no state oversight and has historically tended to have deeply conservative attitudes and makes group decisions with no reference to outside production choices. According to your ideology, this is a gigantic hotbed of reaction that can overwhelm you in an organized uprising against you, sieging you in your towns and cities which are the only places you have genuine control. So, "collectivist" tendencies are only part of the story. Part of collectivization is to utterly destroy russian rural society as it was constituted for centuries- collectivization was a tool to achieve this end by turning lesser peasants against alleged wealthy peasants, among other things.

>Collectivism had already proven not to work when the Russian empire tried it,
military colonies of alexander I, or...?

>not to mention the famine of 46-47
a famine after a merciless army destroys your country? not surprised desu.

Of course not. I'm not a soviet apologist, I recognize that huge mistakes were made. But the lysenko controversy was only a tiny aspect of the general soviet science scene, and naturally the abuses of it were are magnified by anticomms to say "look how orwellian and kafkaesque it all was [burger pseud buzzwords]... our system is soo superior!" The other truth to the Lysenko affair is that Lamarkism was not necessarily an unreasonable belief, and Darwinism as it existed back then was still a relatively unrefined theory compared to today. The relevance of Epigenetics today is a testament is that there was some truth to Lamarkism, but on a molecular level. Also, a shit ton of vogue social theories of the "social darwinists" discussed since the mid 19th century were actually LAMARKIAN. The only wrong in lysenko controversy was the coercion, not the idea.

>specially as far as railroads were concerned, and that this put them on edge and made them less willing to wait for a diplomatic solution during the July crisis.
I'm not sure about railway, as Russia's railway was actually pretty small for the time being, compared to its sheer size, hell its railway size was less than 20% of America's, but I can see your point. I can see why the German high command would be petrified, but today we have the benefit of hindsight. And I don't think German General Staff had production/modernization numbers of Russia. Although I would be happy if you could provide evidence to the contrary since this would be enlightening.
I'd say with Germany we have to look at it twofold, as both of them were massive trading partners, Russia was Germany's biggest trading partner after all, and their capitalists made sure to satisfy the demands of the Russian population as best they could for profit.

Mainly these
Economic Development of Russia, 1905-1914 by Margaret Miller
Tsarist Economy 1850-1917
Economic History of the USSR 2nd ed. by Alec Nove
Russia Enters the Twentieth Century by Katkov.

it was opposed by landowning peasants, which were a minority of the population. Landless peasants who worked for richer ones is a different question.

>Economic Development of Russia, 1905-1914 by Margaret Miller
I forgot to mention I am using second edition of this book "with special reference to trade, industry and finance"

>Economic History of the USSR 2nd ed.
My bad, I also meant "3rd edition, 1993" not 2nd.

>Landless peasants who worked for richer ones is a different question.
It's a different question with the same answer. The Bolshevik power base came from 2 primary groups: urban industrial workers and disgruntled soldiers. Peasants didn't support the Bolsheviks.

Thanks mate.
>But the lysenko controversy was only a tiny aspect of the general soviet science scene, and naturally the abuses of it were are magnified by anticomms
Mate, it can't be overstated how unscientific the USSR was. That sort of thing directly affects and depreciates their status as an agricultural... Entity. Can't even call it a power.

Many of the soldiers undoubtedly came from poor peasant backgrounds. But considering most poor peasants were illiterate, i'm sure they didn't really have too strong of feelings going towards either liberalism or communism.

Are you the same guy posting the pages?

I would suggest to first get your hands on Margaret Miller's books. That is if you want mainly objective data and statistics, that one is basically 50-60% text, 40-50% tables/statistics showcasing production, income, taxes, trade, debt etc. of the Russian Empire, very good book. Also if you want to read up more on investments (especially French) and of the sort then "Studies in the Russian economy before 1914" by Olga Crisp is a good pick, although at times it may be nauseating to read.

its true that lysenkoism was a giant failure but that's mostly confined to the stalin era. As soon as de stalinization happened they started taking science seriously.

>Prikaz no 1
The petrograd soviet at that time was not a bolshevik institution, brainlet, so please be specific as to whom you mean "they". In addition, the bolshevik party is extremely split over collaboration with the Provisional government, with stalin, for example, favoring collaboration until Lenin arrives in April.
>The white army was reconquering it's own lands.
>its own
There was not "its". There is only a free for all of multiple different locuses of power vying to control Russia for the benefit of its party. Bolsheviks and "Whites" (which isn't even really a thing, considering how multifarious the opposition is and how they are fighting each other just as much as the Reds) were no different in this regard.
>Those were white army lands to begin
No they were "Tsarist" and then "provisional governments", then they were "whoever's army is parked here".
>Communists? Wanting piece?
I never said shit about that. As it was, the only way for the Reds to have peace was through war, as the saying has it. The Whites were not going to sit their and let them take Russia- they made that clear very early.

> Let's talk more about communist aggression:
You mean you want to move goal posts and change the topic so you can go on ramblings about "muh evil commies"? No thanks, that's not what were debating about.

>>Among the first acts of the bolsheviks was to dedicate funding to sciences
Simon Ings- Stalin and the Scientists

>hadn't consolidated their base of power until many months later
You think when they seized power in Petrograd the whole Russian heartland in November 1917 just fell into their laps immediately?

and b4 Poland-Soviet War- that was a Soviet War of aggression spread international revolution. But the argument isn't even about that so, again, it's retarded to masturbate over soviet aggression when we're talking about economy

Their growth prior to the great war was not impressive. In fact, it's the very reason the German high command wanted a war; at the time, a modern railway system was effectively a nuclear deterrent, so Germany felt pressured to jump before the Russians finished industrialization

Right, the implication here being that communism is for smart people.He already covered the more important religious aspect to anti-communism, thank you.
Thanks mate. Nice pic. I've read tons on the Soviet economy but not the imperial I'll have a go. Appreciate you.
>The petrograd soviet at that time was not a bolshevik institution, brainlet, so please be specific as to whom you mean "they"
So....
>"Soviet Order Number 1 was issued March 14, 1917 and was the first official decree of The Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrograd_Soviet_Order_No._1
Brusilov in his Notebook mentions it's purely communists who railed the army into the dirt for the sake of destroying it's effectiveness under the guise of unionization.
>Simon Ings- Stalin and the Scientists
Didn't I just post above that Stalin was the one that invigorated soviet sciences? I guess you're just catching up.
The wars directly affect the military. You can't say communism has nuffin to do with the poor economy, then blame the wars, then neglect the fact that the communists were the ones killing millions of countrymen, promising liberation for satellite cultures, and immediately invading them as well. Especially with war communism in practice. EXCUSES.

Peasants might not have believed in "liberalism" per say but they very strongly believed in their right to sell food for a profit, which is something they suddenly weren't allowed to do once the Bolsheviks took over. This seemed utterly insane to them because selling food for profit is how they'd made their income literally their entire lives. That the new government was telling them that this was no longer allowed was unfathomable to them. The Cheka had to deal with basically non-stop peasant revolts until the NEP was passed, which temporarily alleviated the issues.

>That the new government was telling them that this was no longer allowed was unfathomable to them
Not only that, the communists were lying. They were saying that the people have a right to their labors and products, no more working for cronies and every person gets their share of the work since there would be nothing without them- and then they immediately turned into cronies and stole peoples produce.

Nothing to say about your made up claims? Ffs you couldn't even google the information. It would've taken you five seconds to realize that the Petrograd Soviet was communist aligned. Communism really is just one big lie- Liberty Prime had it right.

>Mate, it can't be overstated how unscientific the USSR was
It wasn't though. Soviet science was better than anything that came before in Russia or many other countries. It is also contingent on the period of USSR history talked about.

>>"Soviet Order Number 1 was issued March 14, 1917 and was the first official decree of The Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies."
Soviet pre-November 1917 =/= Soviet post-November 1917 when it was conflated with bolshevik or later the communist party. Before November it meant "democratically elected workers council" in which bolsheviks were only one among many parties.

>t's purely communists who railed the army into the dirt for the sake of destroying it's effectiveness under the guise of unionization.
Brusilov didn't like Soviets, even if he thought they were the lesser of evils post-November 1917.

>Didn't I just post above that Stalin was the one that invigorated soviet sciences?
It discusses Lenin era too.

>You can't say communism has nuffin to do with the poor economy
Well they certainly didn't care about rebuilding economy in the midst of a war, whether defensive of expansionary. The Whites certainly didn't care either until they hoped to win.
>the ones killing millions of countrymen,
It was not a onesided affair. To blame the Red army for killing is to treat all the other sides as defenseless victims.

...

>Nothing to say about your made up claims?
which ones?

>Communism really is just one big lie- Liberty Prime had it right.
[insert moralizing anticommunist hysteria]

>It would've taken you five seconds to realize that the Petrograd Soviet was communist aligned.
It was socialist aligned. Bolsheviks didn't have a majority in it till mid 1917 iirc. Communist =/= menshevik and SR and other worker parties

>Soviet science was better than anything that came before in Russia or many other countries.
>or many other countries
They were promoting a pseudo science as standard for agriculture. This is some next level pro-gommie zealotry.
>It is also contingent on the period of USSR history talked about.
Absolutely, but it's not a positive thing. It's a net negative. What did they really invent on their own? All I can think of is the Theremin and the heartbeat monitor.
>Soviet pre-November 1917 =/= Soviet post-November 1917 when it was conflated with bolshevik or later the communist party. Before November it meant "democratically elected workers council" in which bolsheviks were only one among many parties.
Firstly, I'm addressing communism in general as being shitty. That's proof of that. It doesn't matter whether they're bolsheviks, mensheviks, Jewish labor bundists, etc. The fact communism causes that self-destruction on purpose is the point, and trying to obfuscate that by bringing up the non-point of them being two different types of equally shitty communism doesn't change that. It incriminates all of communism actually.
>Brusilov didn't like Soviets, even if he thought they were the lesser of evils post-November 1917.
No fucking wonder he didn't like what they did. At the end of the book he sucks them off though, his book probably would've been banned and burned if he didn't though.
>It discusses Lenin era too.
What little there was.
>It was not a onesided affair. To blame the Red army for killing is to treat all the other sides as defenseless victims.
So the communists shouldn't be responsible for causing the communist civil war? Or for the famines and shortages their economic programs brought? Or the fact the reds were suspending human rights and stealing property? Or...
>killing tens of millions of people and removing all natural rights is too sensationalized
>Bolsheviks didn't have a majority in it till mid 1917 iirc
>iirc
You don't.

>They were promoting a pseudo science as standard for agriculture.
Yes because stalinist system was autocratic, and stalin's promotion of lysenko gives lysenko authority and power to coerce fellow intellectuals. I'm fine with admitting that stalinist system had awful faults.
>This is some next level pro-gommie zealotry.
I'm allowed to defend aspects of a regime without being an exponent of it, you know?

>What did they really invent on their own?
can't name any off the bat, but they did invent things, just a lot is not consumer oriented.

>I'm addressing communism in general as being shitty.
Then use "marxist" or "socialist" because none of those parties called themselves communist except the bolsheviks who changed their party name to that in 1920 or so. It's simply anachronistic to use that word in this instance.
>self-destruction on purpose
their destructions had a purpose, it's just they had reasons alien to your perspective.
>and trying to obfuscate that by bringing up the non-point
It's a big point. There's a reason that many SRs and Mensheviks fought against the Bolsheviks and with them.
>being two different types of equally shitty communism
some were more like social democrats in practice, hardly "communists". the problem is we won't ever know what the other parties would have done in power or in coalition with the bolsheviks, that's the realm of counterfactual. We can't say if they'd be better worse or the same as just the bolsheviks alone.
>You don't.
kek. I actually do. pic related, third paragraph.
>So the communists shouldn't be responsible for causing the communist civil war?
I don't think they were solely responsible, unless you think their simply existing and taking power caused the civil war.
>Or for the famines and shortages their economic programs brought?
How does this compare to the White army regimes?

I don't think the German high command would be as paranoid if they had the data we have today. The growth of Russian industry decelerated in the period 1900-1913 compared to 1860-1900, especially in the yearly increase in the per capita output of labor, which dropped from 2.6% to 0.9%, even though the total number employed increased.