> they'd squeeze anything to make russia/ussr look bad, however little.
You don’t need to squeeze anything to make Russia/USSR look bad.
You don’t need to squeeze anything to make Russia/USSR look bad.
- That established the 8 hour work day in 1917,
- legalized abortion in 1920,
- erradicated illiteracy and achieved a literacy rate of 75% starting from 25%,
- Was the first country to build satellites and men to space?
- Provided a decent standard of living to all their citizens while also suffering inmense pression from the First World?
You really have to grasp straws to criticize a country that made such enormous progress in such short time and that improved the lives of millions while also being attacked from left and right.
Communism didn’t work, for sure, but I’m not sure how this takes away from the things that the Soviets did accomplish, which op listed above.
I also find it interesting the standard we judge the Soviets by. Millions have starved under capitalism, but in comparison to what? the Western world where we’ve been constantly at war with some country in the world, treating brown people as less than humans, causing refugee crises in the millions and civil wars?
I know the typical response to this comment is something like, “Oh but that’s whataboutism”. Well the reality is that as an American, I we should have the self awareness to recognize that we’re like a skunk complaining about the stench from another skunk.
Back to the original topic - the anti Russia frenzy is in full swing. This much should be clear to anyone, based on the tone of this article.
I'm not sure why implementing a wartime economic measures is supposed to be a knock. The US economy is far from a textbook definition of capitalism, just like Communist China is nothing like the dictionary definition of Communism. All economic systems are hodgepodge of economic systems, full of good and bad ideas, some with more good than others.
hahaha. Let me laugh more: HAHAHHAHAHA.
You are the kind of guy who believes that American sanctions against Venezuela are "well-meaning", that the bombing of civilian populations are "shameful errors", that lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "an honest mistake", that the invasion of Afghanistan was done to "combat terrorism" and that the bombing of Syriah was to "promote democracy and freedom", right? You sincerely believe that, correct?
So you’re implying that US should cooperate with autocratic regimes and empower their rulers to further oppress the people living there? Obviously they tried that as well and I’m sure you’d criticize it as much. So which one is the right option?
They should’ve hanged Sadam back in 91, the only problem is that it took two wars for that to happen. Getting rid of the Taliban was the right thing to do as well, but again the fucked up there miserably as well. Same in Syria (obviously you have the Russians involved there to which complicates things)
Communist governments are not "autocratic regimes that oppress the people living there". That's propaganda. They are socialist governments where the proletariat controls the State through its Vanguard, which is the Communist Party. If there is a fact that distinguish socialist countries is the desire to provide a high standard of living to their citizens, with a special emphasis in education, health care, and erradicating poverty. The USSR, Cuba, China, and all socialist countries were extremely successful in that, so no, they don't "oppress" their people, the people actually govern the State, and not the capitalists.
Comunist states are very sucessful, that's why the West needs to invest so much in wars, propaganda, coup attempts and economic warfare to try to destroy them.
Think for a millisecond, if socialist states weren't sucessful, why the US would spend so much effort in trying to destroy them? It doesn't make sense, simply let them fail, after all, communism doesn't work, right? Why would someone dedicate any effort to destroy something that is already doomed? The answer is simple: communism DOES work, IT IS sucessful, and if let alone would quickly become unstopable. That's why the West has always tried to destroy it, because they don't want the world to realize that a viable option to capitalism exists.
No it doesn’t. Communism destroyed itself, at the end western powers had very little to do with it directly.
Honestly I can’t tell if your whole post is sarcasm. Tanks go brr, amirite comrade?
- the murder of millions of innocent people
- the worst nuclear accident on the planet
Russia was bad then and continues today. Nothing needed other than history to make that case.
Were there economic problems and famines? Yes, of course, all countries with a rural economy are exposed to famines. Let me introduce you to the Irish famine, that killed millions in a capitalist country, such as Ireland.
Can we count the millions dying of hunger is capitalist countries as victims of capitalism?
"O'Leary pointed out that the decision-making by the government of the day was based on capitalist principles rather than ethnicity; its aim was to reduce the tax burden on the middle-class (who were of both main ethnicities) by clearing the 'unproductive' landless poor from Ireland." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
- the worst nuclear accident on the planet
Thats a funny way of calling the bombing of Iroshima and Nagasaki. Iroshima and Nagasaki were not accidents, they were the purposefully killing of millions by an atomic bomb. They were not accidents, THOSE were murders.
Tankie with his "made up numbers" again. What next are you going to say? Holocaust is made up to mud the name of the glorious Reich that lifted Germany out of poverty?
The killing of millions is hard to dispute. Take just one incident, the Holomodor. That engineered catastrophe killed millions and Russia now appears to be trying to wipe out Ukraine again.
Edit: For anyone wondering what this poster is about, take a look at their brief comment history and all will be cleared up.
Having a list of accomplishments doesn't negate criticism. I'd actually argue going from a semi-feudal rural society to a hyper military-industrial one in such a short timespan and in a forced top-down approach actually made things worse in the long run. I'm biased though, since the only people I know from the Soviet Union were the ones who escaped.
> legalized abortion in 1920,
and later banned it. But then again tankies tend to be quite lose with facts
> Provided a decent standard of living to all their citizens while also suffering inmense pression from the First World?
What?! Is this sarcasm? Millions of people starved to death to a large extent due to misguided bolshevik policies between 1917 and the 1940s. That is arguably true only starting in the 50s and 60s.