The most butthurting fact for liberals: Soviet Union was actually a most sucessfull economy in world's history

The most butthurting fact for liberals: Soviet Union was actually a most sucessfull economy in world's history.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sRSowj8fEaE
gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/
youtu.be/VSqJ2rjyz2k?t=32m38s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

So successful it doesn't exist anymore

So successful it was brought down by a blindfolded drunk anarchist with only half a molotov and ten tonnes of spirit.

It is only good for the state, bad for the worker.

Due to internal flaws with the Soviet system (political, not economic) which Lenin himself saw. The USSR was hijacked and derailed, it didn't fail.

So successfull that it had the greatest and most stable increase in GDP than any other economy, and Soviet solitions became later inspiration for so called "Asian Tigers", used, what the funniest thing, by libertarians as an example of success of capitalism.

And yet it doesn't exist anymore, with nothing to show for it

Soviet Union was wonderful place.

youtube.com/watch?v=sRSowj8fEaE

It doesn't exist because of armaments race, and Regan policies, which lead to acquisition of control by the army in Sojuz, and stupid economic decisions made by military instead of marxist economists.

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

Proving the success of Soviet communism is a trivial matter. It takes some seriously desperate wishful thinking to believe a country where so many lived such healthy and stable lives was seriously mismanaged.

uh huh

and why do you think that is

HINT it has to do with CLASS and CAPITAL ACCUMULATION

So then it's not a very durable alternative

hurr durr it only cuz of every1 elze ruining it

great analysis dipshit.

It's a simple observation. I don't care much for failures

The Soviet Union was under constant assault from the entire developed capitalist world for it's whole existence. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that this might have played a major role in it's economic troubles can only be called baffling. Or more accurately, pure wishful thinking.

Self loathing is a heavy burden to bear.

Have you got any space doggos? No? Then shut your mouth.

Assault didn't destroy it though.

Is that what brought down the Berlin Wall?

Then where the hell is it?

Coming back for you.

By that logic, Nazi Germany was the most successful economy in world history. They fought three superpowers and still almost won and turned around the most economically desperate situation in the 20th century and world history becoming the richest country both in GDP and per capita in the world whereas the USSR never once surpassed the US GDP and per capita and were only ruined by so much of the world's constant assault on them. But we both know that's not how it fucking works, don't we? At this point you're either making an excuse for state capitalism and so many other failures of the Soviet Union or we just rewrite Marxism because it's convenient to notice fascist states from fascist Rome in the past to fascist states UK, Nazis, USSR, and USA today and we should embrace that. Which is it?

Even aside from foreign interference, the Soviet Union "fell" for entirely logical reasons. After 75 years of material accumulation, the ruling bureaucratic class of the SU reached a point where material accumulation was no longer reliant on improving the lot of the working class. Once the workers became superfluous, the trappings of a worker's state were dispensed with.

If anything it just proves the veracity of Marx's statement that there will be either communism or barbarism. It's an objective fact that the USSR saw post ww2 economic development on par with and sometimes even surpassing that of the Lasseiz-faire Western Capitalists, while post dissolution of the USSR many of its previously constituent nations are stagnant at best or have devolved into despotic regimes without even the pretense of concern for the working people.

The USSR is imminently worthy of study because it's socialism's greatest success and its greatest failure. Under state control, just like we see in China today, the government was able to provide incredible levels of economic development and social security to people only a few generations removed from feudal serfdom. However, despite all the red flags and golden crests, it was still subject to the same motivations and contradictions of its liberal counterparts. When the workers were no longer a material factor in the creation and accumulation of wealth, but rather a burden to it in the eyes of the ruling class, they were jettisoned and then the wealth they had spent generations creating was pillaged by state mafioso or raiders from the West. The people chose socialism, while the ruling class chose barbarism, like they always, always do.

Nice tirade and all but the USSR actually managed to build social services for all it's citizens from scratch while the "success" of Nazi Germany can be found in dumping all treasure into their military and barely keeping it's starving population afloat by looting other countries of all their wealth and foodstuff. There is no comparison to be drawn here. I was not referring to the USSR's success at surviving under stressful circumstances, but to actually functioning like a healthy society. Something fascist states have never achieved.

I am not re-writing Marxism. That the S.U. was a communist society is not something hard to prove for anyone remotely literate in Marxist theory. In Soviet society all of society's resources were owned or allocated by the state industrial ministries with no exchanges in ownership between them. No purchase of labor, no buying or selling of means of production. Marx would ridicule the notion that this represented bourgeois society.

I thought the USSR and Marxists say it was socialist or an attempt to reach socialism, and that it never reached communism. I think even Khrushchev
promised they'd reach communism in 20 years in 1962, implying they hadn't reached it.

Most distinctions between socialism and communism are founded on etymological illiteracy, which Khrushchev and the Soviet leadership after Lenin were certainly guilty of. Even a cursory glance at Marx&Engels' work will reveal that they themselves made an early distinction between socialism and communism but later came to use the two in an often almost synonymous sense.

wew


WEW

So the USSR achieved communism? But then why didn't they actually say that? And in that case, communism is very unattractive.

Also all the Marxists I've read say it was an attempt at socialism and most certainly not communist

no

youtu.be/VSqJ2rjyz2k?t=32m38s

so successful that millions died of starvation

Totally false.

(You)

...

smaller economy than Japan

collapsed to shit

It's true

The USSR was good. Certainly from the 1950s-1980s

The most butthurting fact for tankies: Soviet Union was actually the most ruthlessly hierarchical country on the planet after WW2.

People from peasant backgrounds became political and economic leaders. The USSR had excellent social mobility.

So it did. But if you missed your shot at making it out of your humble beginnings you sure as shit weren't enjoying any power.

Likewise in the USA a black Hawaiian can become president, this does not mean that suddenly black people aren't marginalized by the state.

And when they were appointing successors, they searched far and wide for the most qualified and able, skipping over their immediate family and everyone ate cotton candy from the cotton candy trees, and drank from the coca cola lake, and rode the waffle roller-coaster.

Obama was elite from birth

...

...

What a waste of trips you fucking retard.

hurr durr soviet union waz shit goys

The most butthurting fact for fascists: Soviet Union killed Nazi Germany

...