How can anyone admire the Soviet Union (especially as a communist) when it utterly failed? For example...

How can anyone admire the Soviet Union (especially as a communist) when it utterly failed? For example, there was a conflict between family & state. The values of the state also did not translate into personal values. The hedonistic approach to life permeated all
spheres of Soviet society In the last two decades. occupational choice among the Soviet people has been increasingly shaped by the concern for an easy job, with good working conditions and a location where living standards were high. Stalin was also faced with an incentive issues for workers, and let's not forget the great queues people faced whenever they were to get basic necessities.

So, what are the reasons for Soviet Union admiration? They never achieved Communism and the people themselves were just as capitalist as Americans.

Attached: 29983_1312467367545_4691965_n.jpg (395x452, 56.44K)

Other urls found in this thread:

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
economist.com/node/21578665/comments?page=1
economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim
thecaptivereader.com/2011/12/15/how-we-survived-communism-and-even-laughed-slavenka-drakulic/
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

Great post who's the trap in your pic?

at least they had a better shot at it than anyone else

you must be new, nobody defends late USSR here, we realize it was ruined by revisionism at that point

really all you just said only applies to the 80s and onwards, also, there is nothing wrong with hedonism but that's for another time

Crock of shit
As with any centre of economic output, the taper would be towards developed areas; however, this would not only be the case anywhere but still didn't affect the actual dispersion of labor across the Soviet Union
Not particularly, the dour years of 'abstemious' abstention were hardly that considering the rapid rate of development and improvements in the quality of life.
mostly consumer commodities, hardly necessities at all

Not a defense of the Union or its productive organization, but this reading of the culture and historical conditions is trite and stale, through and through.

Looks like PJ Harvey, not a trap tho

The soviet Union was a success all things considered

The USSR was the greatest thing to ever happen, the greatest society in the history of humankind thus far. Its destruction by the forces of capital is the greatest crime against humanity and we will not be absolved of it till we hang the last capitalist with the entrails of the last landlord.

Seriously? You blame the mistakes of the previous administrations on people who served in the last two decades?

The conditions of vocation clearly weren't very communist, they didn't meet state ideology standards. The Soviet youth especially were extremely consumeristic and desired an American way of life despite having to go from train to Moscow for toliet paper.


how so?

They were the only state with military technology comparable to the US and its allies. People are understandably nostalgic for a time when capitalists didn't control every military apparatus worth mentioning.

Also
Yeah having to wait in line to get groceries doesn't really seem like that much of a "failure" to me.

Attached: question mark 45903849058390485034.png (828x720, 625.19K)

I personally only admire the aesthetics. The New Economic Policy was only supposed to last until the USSR developed into a modern state, afterwards the State was to give the means of production directly to the workers. However, after Lenin died the USSR gave up on that goal and the bureaucracy got a little too comfy, hence why it failed. If any of the Eastern Bloc moved past this stepping stone to socialism, then things would have turned out differently.

Attached: 1507193642448.jpg (720x901 157.92 KB, 171.41K)

The Nazi invasion was anything but comfortable.
The best argument that the USSR was socialist is that it won WW2 despite starting in the worst circumstances imaginable, crushed the best military on earth, and emerged as a superpower. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and accept socialism.
It's the best model to look to for the future for that very reason;we face an unprecedented threat to human life in climate change. Barracks Eco-Communism is the future.

Attached: 1493081878715.jpg (777x759, 270.66K)

Does anyone here actually admire the USSR? I thought that all of the pro-Soviet posters on this board were just joking.

Not only I do admire it, but I specifically admire the Stalin era and think that was superior where I live today
I'm also a fan of North Korea.
Look here

Either stupid or bait.

How is it the best model when all attempts failed and all were simply totalitarian shitholes?

Attached: queues-for-the-new-iphone-4s-at-birmingham-bullring-apple-store-98353445.jpg (1200x630, 103.26K)

Much better to be a test case for disaster capitalism. Also America is a totalitarian shithole well on its way to post soviet Russia level dysfunction. Rampant corruption, child poverty, drug epidemics, we have it all.

Eat shit and die spoiled brat.

Projecting much?
First I'm the one supporting the """starving""" system here, so not the spoiled one.
Second could you give me some sources on the starving part?
Seriously, to my knowledge except for the holodohoax and that one other famine no one starved

The USSR ended starvation in Russia.

Attached: ussr capitalism543.png (1400x948, 74.51K)

You can support it, with proper argumentation. Your reasoning is poor.

How is Capitalism a disaster when it lifted billions out of poverty? I do agree with you on America becoming a totalitarian nation, but to me that's due to socialism.

...

Two unrelated posts. Your reasoning was poor. If you want to counter my point on the other post, go ahead and do so.

Attached: laughing lesbian whores.png (367x446, 317.04K)

Attached: 1521502448931.jpg (356x400, 73.07K)

America is adopting Soviet styled totalitarian with the new 'social justice' movement. To you, because you are part of this movement, you would see America as 'reactionary, fascist, sexist, racist, xenophobic' and a whole lot of isms and skisms. That's required in order to push the Agenda. It's the law of polarity, the heremetic opposites. You can't have that much light without darkness, but do continue your ignorance.

Attached: 749811-2a47e1fe4c744f3e45c933ac6e428fc0.jpg (624x351, 24.85K)

most posters here don't actually subscribe to the sort of intersectionality you are alluding to

Oh right, silly me, you guys are all for 'equality', love, hugging trees, and you disagree with the ☭TANKIE☭s. Such poetry. If you advocate totalitarianism and violence to achieve your goals, you are identical.

Attached: Progeria.jpg (350x263, 13.01K)

Attached: 61D_hobbes.jpg (1549x1181 20.83 KB, 944.69K)

Once you learn about the afterlife and the nature of human consciousness you won't advocate such pathetic, power hungry ideologies.

Attached: face yui4534.png (205x290, 10K)

now you know how the rest of us feel when we see that flag of yours

Why would you care what a Christian has to say? They are just communists + the spiritual aspect (which isn't actually spiritual at all, more so a spiritual prison) Both of you are identical

Attached: rosa-hiding-from-socdems-1919-colorized-1919-rosa-luxemburg-hiding-22744672.png (500x527, 102.16K)

Anarchism, which is collective, still coerces the individual. You act up, you get shunned, dismissed.

He's a social democrat amigo, his only pain is the five years he isn't in power every couple of terms. And black people moving into his neighborhood

Attached: 79492b0a87f841b42de2bfddfcfe0b378feb967a.jpg (709x315, 32.89K)

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

Attached: be45835fa251f0ef6530e05dab8e5a177ec8f33dec82e49c72ac522fef0dac89.jpg (1083x645, 245.05K)

with the new 'social justice' movement. To you, because you are part of this movement
You really don't know what board you're on, do you?
Read the FAQ

Attached: 924bcf4f31f1159f7af594cb2796cbf14be61f9647e905484627eb9c052eac24.jpg (1275x324 134.12 KB, 46.68K)

“That’s the law of polarity” “heremetic opposites” “you can’t have this much light without darkness” fuck off with this mystical shit gypsy I’m ain’t crossing your palm with shit

you don't even know what socialism is.

how can anyone be this stupid

Attached: socialism.jpg (960x643 141.16 KB, 41.45K)

It failed, but not utterly. The USSR was more succesful than most capitalist countries. The problem is that you've been cucked into comparing it with countries which have always been more developed, like the USA and Western Europe. A more accurate comparison would be with Brazil.
Not even worth responding to cause it can't be proven.
This is unironically human nature though. This happens everywhere; people want better working conditions and living standards. Where's your argument?
Stalin implemented a piece-wage system and reached full employment. What's next? 100 million? Muh breadlin-
Ah yes, this world superpower wasn't even able to feed its own populace lmao
Maybe going full capitalist will solv-
Oh. Oops.
Uhhhh… fake news! Commie lies!

Admiration? A few, but I leave admiration to the tanks.
That's something you can legitimately critique though instead of making up lies about muh 100 million.
Actual capitalists (as in people who make a living off their capital instead of their labor) are capitalists and no one else. "The people" are never capitalist, it's simply imposed on them.

Because it worked. It went from peasants to space travel in 30 some years without any sort of market.

Attached: 7556565.gif (390x261, 1.81M)

All systems are totalitarian as they are all class rule.

it was abandoned. it never failed.

Attached: 20171009_215030.jpg (810x1214, 583.43K)

Wait are we sure Harvey isn’t a trap tho

The statistics invovled in this 'refutation' has no connection to the argument presented by Capitalists who claim this.

Communism is about equality of outcome and 'intersectionality', all communists thought this way, a group of disgruntled men on the internet do not prove otherwise. See why Hitler started WW2 - it was a war against 'jewish bolshevism' destroying tradition, which is what modern communists advocate today.

In the past 20 years, a billion have been lifted out of poverty. economist.com/node/21578665/comments?page=1

economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

Proven by the many people who lived during those times and numerous studies and observations about the last two decades of the Soviet union. As for denying the reality that Soviet citizens had to travel to Moscow on a train just for toilet paper, and the long queues experiences, I cannot reason with that as it's documented to the bone, not only by 'capitalist pigs' but by the administration itself.

Those problems were caused due to the late Communist administration. GDP dropping 40% is due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, no?

One big difference was actually in terms of consumer culture and how that affected women's lives socially and physically. Because Communist countries focused on heavy industry rather than consumer goods, not only were there few cars and telephones, but there were no tampons or pads. Also, there was not very much makeup, certainly not much good makeup.

I have a close friend from the Czech Republic whose mom grew up during Communism, and for her just these consumer goods were one of the big changes. For reference, Slavenka Drakulić also speaks about this change.

I'm sorry I only have sources from Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, but I imagine women in the Soviet Union had just as much a time finding these goods, and I haven't seen anyone else mention this angle.
thecaptivereader.com/2011/12/15/how-we-survived-communism-and-even-laughed-slavenka-drakulic/

Under Lenin, divorce was made much easier. Abortion was also legalised. This is because of a Marxist belief that marriage was a bourgeois institution, and that women were to be "freed from the bondage of children and family". This didn't last too long however, and the party (even under Lenin) soon came to question it's previous decisions. By the late 1930s, divorce rates in the Soviet Union were the highest in Europe at one divorce for every two marriages.

This led Stalin to embark on the "Great Retreat" whereby Stalin came to stress that the family was a stabilizing influence on society. Stalin reasoned that in order to be a good communist, one had to be a good citizen, and in order to become a good citizen, one had to be a good husband/father/wife/mother.

Industrialisation and collectivisation had caused large social unrest, and Stalin stressed good ol' family values as a remedy to this, attaching traditional values to women, such as their roles as home-makers and child-raisers. He also noticed that there were a great number of orphaned children living on the streets, formed into gangs. This further caused Stalin to recreate the importance of the family in the Soviet Union.

In June 1936, he reversed much of the social policy regarding women which had been written under Lenin, importantly:

Marriages now had to be registered to be recognised.

Divorce was once again made difficult

Abortion rights were restricted

The family was declared the "basis of Soviet society"

Homosexuality was made illegal

This put an end most of the progressiveness Soviet social policy may have once had.

Also, as birthrates were falling and many men were dying in the Second World War, in July 1944, the USSR introduced measures to re-affirm the values of the family, as well as to incentivise women to have more children. In actual fact, these measures restricted women's rights even further. As of July 1944:

Divorce was made even harder

Abortion was made totally illegal

Mothers with more than two children were declared "heroines of the revolution"

Parents with fewer than two children face heavier taxes

The right to inherit family property (restricted under Lenin) was re-established.

Though Soviet propaganda talked a lot about gender equality, in actual fact there was very little. In 1936, Stalin created a "Housewives' Movement" which was charged with "civilising the tastes" and improving the working conditions of women, but in actual fact the USSR was so rapt on it's war economy that the group received little attention or funding, a long with almost all women's organisations.

Some women gained income and status under Stalin, but these were rare cases, and almost always unmarried and childless women.

Women did become better represented in the workforce, largely due to a lack of men because of the war. in 1936, there were 9 million women in the industrial workforce of the USSR. By 1945, there were 15 million. In fact, by 1945, half of all Soviet Workers were female. In the Soviet armed forces themselves, over half a million women fought.

Despite women's massive contributions to the USSR and the Soviet war effort, equality was not really achieved. In real terms, women's pay fell between 1930 and 1945.

This was done because, for the most part, people had been getting married for purely financial reasons and by arrangement. If this hadn't been done, this would have continued and people would have remained trapped in these predicaments.
We should also make the clear distinction between the Marxist argument against marriage, that being the state enforced and legally binding kind, and monogomous relationships. Marxists since Marx have always been for stable monogamous relationships and have had no problem with proletarian development of the family. The issue is the bourgeoisie conception of both things.
This was actually stressed even earlier, read Lenin's opinion and critique on free love.
As was necessary given the war. On the topic of abortion, the Bolsheviks were always pro-natalist but legalized abortion out the realization that if they did not they could not control it/screen applicants and babki's would perform procedures illegally anyway, albiet with more risk to the patient.

I don't admire it. I think it did both amazing and horrible things. Stalin, mainly, being the biggest issue. While, yeah, he did many things that helped the country and there's a reason most people in modern Russia prefer him to lenin, actually, however he was kinda a monster.

Attached: 2e4c66be97818d90b7f3d2b52071f749837e26ae4083fce7ac44cca040530baf.png.jpg (231x255, 14.25K)

Reminder that light industry ==13== years after the USSR's collapse was at ==15%== of 1990 levels. No, not a 15% reduction, a 85% reduction.
Not only was there a decrease in consumer goods for the first decade after its collapse, not only were the consumer goods which did become available inequally distributed, they were all imported. Domestic production of consumer goods collapsed.

Eat shit.

fuck me red text didnt work

It turned a backwater feudal shithole into the second most powerful country in the world in a matter of decades which after the 40s had no famine at all

wtf I love Stalin now

1. Considerably improved the lives of many in comparison to America.
2. Purged Kulaks
3. Red Army choir
4. Transformed a backwards feudal country to a world renowned super power.

And I say this as an anarchist.

Jesus fucking christ, and you people call us the "snowflakes"

Attached: 9177371e413cf6426cdb0a17551dad82f02c9c0efbd0c3ffb7a5cb528f5ee7f6.jpg (240x240, 7.63K)

what happened to Holla Forums

(you)

seriously what happened

Actually fucking read
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm
Except, you know, that 56% that want it back and that 16% which is undecided on the topic and wouldn't mind either way.

Meant for

Literally how? The refutation seems to hit the fundamental parts of the article you posted. In fact, the article you posted mostly just explores reasons for why the author thinks poverty reduction took place (this is to say, the article takes the reduction of poverty to be true as a premise to the piece). The only metrics it really mentions are based in poverty rates, which are based off of the "internationally accepted poverty line" (to quote the article) Yet the refutation dedicates a whole section to the IPL!

Hell, it even admits that the majority of poverty reduction comes from china, which took no party in the UN's MGDs, with 3/4 of the reduction in poverty due to China's economic growth. It's important to note however that this growth was only possible because of the changes (see: industrialization) the CPC brought to China. The article you posted even says that outside of china, pulling more out of extreme poverty will be even more difficult!

Furthermore it explains how continuing the reduction as a whole will become increasingly difficult for capitalist nations to reduce poverty as less and less of the population lives in extreme poverty. (Which as of this article, written in 2013 says is 1.25 a day. Interestingly enough, as of 1990 extreme poverty was usually placed around just $1.00 a day. But in 2013 $1.00 a day would be around $1.73 a day. So even in the article itself we see the fuckery that is reducing the extreme poverty line to artificially boost the numbers even further.) Wouldn't this fact alone indicate that laissez-faire capitalism by its nature has forces that resist the reduction of poverty?

It also admits that this poverty reduction solely depends on maintaining the same level of growth in the same countries for several decades (Hell, it even says "That is a lot of ifs". The reduction of poverty in capitalism is an "if" not an inevitability, hm!), growth which I'm willing to claim either hasn't been maintained, or given the current situation of the global market, will not be maintained much longer. All the while we live in a society where we already produce enough to meet their needs!

Also, my favorite line in the whole article
Because wealth equality is so rampant during this great period of global capitalism!

Attached: Screenshot (16).png (1093x658, 352.03K)

To add, during the referendum for the dissolution for the USSR, every SSR that voted had a majority in favor of preserving the USSR

Attached: referendum.jpg (950x751, 211.96K)

The nuance that you're missing here is that he's facetiously poking fun at the extent of totalitarianism in the ussr that liberals depict in their propaganda. He's not actually attacking the USSR.

Disagree, educating newfags with heated shitflinging is more efficient to dispel basic capitalist propaganda talking points than dry theory threads tbh. And not adressing thoses points for too long will end up with Holla Forums anding up being flooded with retards who won' know how to respond to them and end up believing them.
Beside consider this akin to IRL when if you ever start talking politics you will also be met with the same talking points over and over again.

It works on paper. The eggheads here eat that shit up like its the fucking bible.


In theory it works in practice its a failure.

Inb4 some commie geek sites more "paper"

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST 'CAUSE MOD FEE-FEEZ GOT HURT)

politely disagree

.betterignorantthancommunist.jpg

Attached: d20807acdd91d487858997312df455456ea4fad407c65308a0934251b3e20dab.jpg (960x726, 41.29K)

lol facts are for fags XD
t. anti communists