What were the greatest successes of the USSR?

Space Tech, Rocket Tech, Huge Advances in sports science, cooky but possibly dank theoretical physics, weird remote viewing psyche research, sexy athletic women, standardized universale health care, massive nuclear arsenal, lots of nuclear power plants, not being beholden to the IMF or Israel (not that Israel is a huge problem, but its nice to see that the USSR didn't blindly support zionism), encouraged STEM education, extremely progressive women's rights, cool aesthetics

Not starting WW3 with murica was a mistake.

Literacy rates were good.

Fuck The King.

Their film industry.

Even the DDR was the shitty agrarian part of Germany, especially since the only good part (Silesia) went to Poland.

marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm

Young Pioneers

waitingforputney.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/a-beginners-guide-to-soviet-industrialization/

gowans.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/seven-myths-about-the-ussr/

gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/

barbradozier.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-positive-achievements-of-stalin-and-his-regime/

northstarcompass.org/nsc1212/ussr.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_innovation#Late_1910s

communismgr.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/why-socialism-is-superior-to-capitalism.html

they killed communism

t. EXTREMELY JELLY BURGER.

— 17 —
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

— 18 —
What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Using a Marx Flag doesn't make you a marxist, shit-tier memer.

I've never understood these bits of the manifesto

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

*But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

I always took it as Marx laying out an embryonic theory of collective farms. He obviously knew that peasant farming couldn't continue in the society he described.

...

They were the ones who got assfucked, though, with more than triple the casualties of their enemy, who was also fighting a bunch of other countries on the opposite end of the continent…

Russia was useless strategically and essentially served as Germany's punching bag for a few years until the rest of the allies launched the important attacks.

Proving anarchism right

TRIPS CONFIRM

You'd better be meming, boi. The USSR fought practically alone for three years, and even after the Western Front was re-opened they still had to deal with the vast majority of German troops. As for the casualty ratio, that's what happens when you fight the best military in the world. Germany buttfucked every enemy it encountered until the USSR, and even when forced back by overwhelming numbers it remained tactically superior to everyone else, right up the end.

dailymotion.com/video/x2gi341

I don't mean to be rude but this is the wrong board for genuine questions about anything positive regarding the Soviet Union.

Please make yourself familiar with >>>/marx/ and have a look, then ask any questions left.

ANARCHY LIVES

unless it's getting shot by everyone else who's at fault for it not surviving any infant attempts of establishing itself.

in that case it's very much dead as all their dead rotting bodies confirm.

Well ok then

Should also add that the CNT- FAI i still around to this day.

(the organisation not Catalonia)

Translation: I get my history from watching Enemy at the Gates.

IIRC "industrial armies" primarily mean organized labour force. While kolkhozs would be one of the possibilities, I think Marx was thinking more along the lines of trade unions for seasonal workers.

For example, Marx referred to unemployed as "reserve army of labour".

This is mostly about centrally-planned development.

And here we have a little skeleton in the closet. While Marxists considered child labour an abomination under Capitalism, under Socialism it was considered not simply acceptable, but progressive.

The creation of a bureaucratic upper class to oppress the proletariat and keep those dirty proles away from owning the means of production.

USSR-countries are a shithole, famines happens yearly.

* An actual world power challenging the strongest country in the world.
* SAVED EUROPE from the Nazi (hear that ungrateful pussy France?)

Industrializing a country that was practically a feudal state at the start of World War 1. Lowering illiteracy rates from cca. 90 % to 0 % in 20 to 30 years. Going from practically feudalism to space faring in cca 40 years.

Raising life expectancy from 35 to 70 which was certainly quite impressive for its time; male life expectancy during the Yeltsin years actually fell below that of the Stalin era despite the better technology and as far as I know it still has not recovered.

Since "muh graphs" or "my cherrypicked section from my special snowflake right-wing economist" tends to be a popular tactic of rightists to win debates. I've taken some screens that I think may help some anons in the endless debates about 20th century socialism

awesome info

have you got any more?

Yeah, I do. And I plan on posting more stuff when I have the time. Muh computers and muh gdp per capita are pretty common objections.

As it happens Imperial Russia was arguably poorer then Latin America, and certainly poorer then the "core" of Latin America (Argentina, Uruguay) which were considered rich countries. So, the Soviet Union closed the gap so-to speak much faster and to a far greater degree then other developing countries were able.

By some estimates, Russia was roughly ten times poorer per capita then the US in 1914. Allen's data unfortunately takes the European offshoots as a whole and does not take the US and Australia as the richest countries in the world and settler-nations separately. Even going by his data the Anglo-settler world was roughly five times richer then Russia in 1913, and West Europe was almost 3 times as rich.

The USSR per capita in 89-90 is about 17,000 dollars, not luxurious but definitely "First World" they had managed to cut down much of the distance between American and Soviet living standards prior to the reform period sent the living standards of Russian workers over the ledge.

space communism

they were expelled from the IWA (AIT) because the Polish union was triggered at them and the German union (FAU) also was expelled. Now a new union may be formed in Spain to join the IWA.

The polish union has like dozens of members while CNT and FAU has thousands, but still, they think that they should have more power in the IWA than CNT and FAU. The polish cucks are pretty divisive class traitors.

PS: i was a former member of the IWA

forgot my god tankie flag! ;^)
being around anarkiddies made me more pro-tankie

Implementing capitalism.

Source?

Killing the Russian aristocracy and bourgeoisie.

This is a very good pic to send to r/socialism

...

...

source?

Image #1: From Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution by economic historian Robert C. Allen

Image #2: The Anatomy of Revisionism by H.W. Edwards–its important to note here that Edwards is being critical of the Soviet Union here as being a new imperialist power developing a labor aristocracy like the US. Even though he is an ML he didn't write this piece to defend the Soviet Union, though he and his son had visited before.

Image #3: CIA factbook 1990.

Sword Play iirc
It's trash

One thing I've never understood about the USSR, and the Eastern bloc in general, is why there were shortages of basic consumer goods. When you read about life in the USSR, even the people who loved it complain that the shops were always empty and everything sold out too fast. Why did a country that had a stable economy and prioritised basic goods fail to make it so that citizens could get a bottle of milk on demand?

In my view, that was the result of the liberal economic reforms that put the state-owned enterprises on a for profit-basis. Under Stalin the policy was to subsidize necessary consumer goods and to try to bring the costs of goods down consistently over time. That policy clashed with the policy of trying to make the SOEs as "autonomous" as possible and profit-oriented, therefore, much like under capitalism shortages occurred until it was profitable to sell the goods again in sufficient numbers, people ended up buying things they needed through the black market at higher prices etc.

Some criticize Stalin for prioritizing industrialization over consumption but industrialization was intended to make greater levels of consumption possible tomorrow. And also standards of living and levels of consumption did rise even in the 1930s and especially after WWII.

meant for

Not to mention Stalin's industrialization made Socialism in the USSR both economically feasible (a shame Stalin's successors did not pursue Socialism) and allowed the Soviets to actually beat the Germans.