Removed by mod
I don’t understand this point. Or actually, what it’s trying to say at all. This doesn’t refute the fact stated in the post. “It happened in a bad way.” Yeah, I agree, and I would go further to say that it’s easily one of the worst human rights atrocities in history, but I have some bad news about how most of the world developed its wealth. And I got further news for the response that I can already smell cooking none of it is justified.
But the worst news of all: “yes let’s just ignore Stalinism” as a phrase is such a brainded take. I’m still reeling trying to figure out how it factors into this conversation at all.
Removed by mod
So this is amazing because you called out my preemptive dismissal, then walked face-first into saying exactly what I preempted.
The only thing this post points out is that people point to Russia as some sort of example of how communism (well, Russia’s form of “communism” which is a whole other thing) doesn’t work economically. This clearly doesn’t make sense because Russia went from agrarian farmers to an industrialized nation considered one of the 2 “great powers” in the world. That doesn’t seem like a failed economic system to me. It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work. It just talks about the economics.
Now what this post never mentions is the social system in which they became an economic powerhouse. Not because we’re dismissing or ignoring human rights abuses, but because it literally is not relevant to the argument being made, which is specifically a counter argument to people saying communism doesn’t work economically.
We can see this in this post because you have to waffle around saying “well, no one does it without human rights abuses, if this was a pro-american post I would be arguing the opposite, I actually hate both sides etc.” the reason you have to take such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance is because there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.
It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work.
The analogy is apt because it’s drawing attention to the inherent disingenuous nature of the post, i.e. making a point of Russia’s rapid growth industrially without taking into account the massive mortality and suffering that went hand in hand with that. They are, at least arguably, of equal moral dubiousness.
It just talks about the economics.
Hmm… and what powered and lived under said economy, I wonder… Surely it couldn’t be the people and the society they compose, which are thereby necessary to mention in this context to remain logically coherent… No, the economy must live in some nonsensical and abstracted theoretical realm, so we can just go with that, certainly.
human rights abuses…literally not relevant to the argument being made.
This is a joke, right? You don’t actually think the society and people an economy is composed of and the suffering they are dealt is “irrelevant” to said economy? I’m sorry, but what the flying fuck kind of logic even is this?
such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance
Assuming you’re not a campist, I’m sure you can understand the fact that reality (and therefore any opinion also) isn’t so black and white as needing to pick one group or the other without allowing for any nuance.
there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.
Considering how OP’s post consists of a juxtaposition between Russia’s rapid industrialization and the way they are typically portrayed in the US without any nuance, I think most would agree that it’s important to consider the human cost involved in said industrialization, specifically at the hand, at least in part, of Stalinism. Economies can’t really be discussed historically in an abstract bubble separated from any and all sociological factors, that’s not how it works, like, at all.
I think I see the two different arguments we’re speaking past each other about, so I’ll make an analogy. Imagine someone made an argument saying:
"Sorbet is made out of sugar and fruit juice.
The dairy education system: Ice cream is superior because Sorbet isn’t sweet"
And someone comments: “Yes, let’s just ignore the human rights abuses that go into farming the fruit that made the sorbet”
It’s true that sorbet is also made by an exploitative system, similar to how the dairy industry sucks for similar human and animal rights abuses. But the original post (like this one) is not saying sorbet is superior because it is also sweet, nor is it justifying the exploitative fruit farming industry by saying sorbet is able to be sweet like ice cream is sweet. It never denied that ice cream isn’t sweet, in fact, if anything all it did was place sorbet on the same level. It’s simply pointing out how clearly ill-conceived it is to pretend like sorbet hasn’t also demonstrated it’s viability as an economic system.
This analogy is silly, it came off the top of my head, I hope it shows why the argument is a non-sequiter. I think plenty of people are making the leap in logic of imagining the continuing argument as if the OP is saying “communism rules, capitalism drools”, but it just doesn’t.
Also, I’d like to say, pretending that Russia for those 50 years was demonstrating glorious perfect communism is stupid, but that only further helps the argument because it’s pointed to by the US as an example of communism and this post argues that on it’s face that’s a bad argument.
it’s easily one of the worst human rights atrocities in history,
You’d have to be a denialist about a huge number of human rights abuses to think this
That’s maybe fair, I said that to throw them a bone and show that I’m not concerned with trying to deny anything about Stalinism to make my point.
No, you see it’s not ‘Stalinism’ it’s ‘Marxist-Leninism’ which was invented by Stalin, so he could seamlessly join authoritarianisn with the stuff Lenin said, whilst ignoring all the stuff Marx wrote about.
Oh yeah and we need you to not question this and support similar authoritarianisn. But you mustn’t say you love gobbling authoritarianist cock, because we ignore how that’s bad.
Removed by mod
Supporting feudalism to own the commies
I’m pretty sure Stalin and his secret police didn’t give them a choice.
When they captured a B-29 Superfortress they set up a special program to duplicate it right down to patch covering a hole in the fuselage. With special telephone lines leading directly to Stalin and all the design shops. Anyone who fucked up went to the gulag.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
does being mad about tankies make people obsessed with saying slurs or the other way around
did the impudent small dick fascist get upset?
Would that work? I know piefed has some kind of feature to make blocks two way, but the rest of the threadiverse does not, does it really extend to not showing you content from non-piefed users who have blocked you?
They’re on Piefed so presumably it would work for them.
Depending on what you count as industrialization you can put basically every country that ever industrialized ever in a 40 to 50 year time frame. Obviously early adopter like the UK took a bit longer while later adopters like the UDSSR, China or Japan for example could learn from the others and be faster. How does this have to do anything with communism?
It just proves communism is not a failed economic system because it provably delivers the same economic outcomes.
I guess so.
Goddam you really brought out the .world fascists with this one.
Its easy to trigger fascists
Removed by mod
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read in a while. The Soviet Union would have been steamrolled if it hadn’t made a pact to stall for time to industrialize & militarize before the inevitable Nazi assault.
On the other hand, they wouldn’t have had a space program without the Nazi scientists…
The difference is that they only used their labor; they didn’t promote them to leadership positions throughout the Eastern Bloc.
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
- Gabriel Rockhill, 2020: The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
Ummm
You always know you’re about to read something completely wrong stated with maximum confidence when a post starts with this obnoxious redditism.
the Soviets wouldn’t have had to fight the Nazis if Stalin hadn’t signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler.
Wow, even stupider than I expected
Are you talking about operation paperclip?
Yes, literally the exact same thing as the Americans and a few other powers did. Along with hiding Japanese war criminals on exchange for their worthless data in torture.
Yes, literally the exact same thing as the Americans
After the war, twelve Unit 731 members were tried by the USSR in the 1949 Khabarovsk war crimes trials and sentenced to prison. However, many key figures, including Ishii, were granted immunity by the United States in exchange for their research data.
The USSR likely also handed out relatively lenient sentences at the Khabarovsk trials in exchange for information and used Japanese documentation to build its Biological Weapons facility in Sverdlovsk
What would have happened if he hadn’t signed the pact?
Just say nothing. Hitler legally cannot invade if you don’t sign a non-aggression pact with him.
Removed by mod
Holocaust apologia
They say shit like that then be like “we have to beat Russia to the moon”
“be beat Russia at some arbitrary target at set up because they beat us up at every other step”
deleted by creator
You mean that thing that never happened?
Removed by mod
almost single handedly
Oh shit here we go again
If you add almost it’s almost always technically true.
And another 30 years was strictly declining before the end. Economically best version was when Stalin was rule. He has positive GDP even at end of WW2 without oil trading, built many DBs and train many scientists that allows to flight in space (when Stalin was die but we know who make it possible and whos made that inertion). After it in next 30 years one big thing that ussr was made is crude oil trading that allow to fuck off other economy aspects because leaders and elites have enough money from it by some time. And after some crisises (own wars that(surprise!) costs some money, middle east wars that put oil prices down) ussr finally made economical suicide by printing money as much as they needed for support they military. Some years and that union was gone.
Lenin was austrian-bribed version of currently died Navalny(paid from EU) but way more bloody and he was gloried that country (Russian Empire) is losing in WW1. He put country in the ruins and after it was stealing by military force most of food from people to feed up his military to stabilize his throne because country was poor to make it available by another ways after inner war that is Lenin was started(want to put the meme - what makes it? What makes it?). If Stalin was the same dumb like Lenin, nazis can easily invade this weak union.
And thats all about economics and the dumbs(and elites that want more and more money) in economics in the first place.
Removed by mod
It’s the mix of ignorance and complete arrogant confidence that make people like you so loathsome.
It’s kind of an odd reading of history to pretend like the enlightenment and ensuing industrial revolution didn’t lift most of the “developed” world out of poverty. Sure, some countries got there through something adjacent to socialism, and some countries got there through capitalism. But the common thread seems like it has more to do with ending feudalism and advanced manufacturing than pure economic theory.
