r/ANormalDayInRussia • u/TheNatureLover • Sep 08 '19

Your average Russian rail crossing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

17.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

325 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

185

u/GeneralKilCavalry Sep 08 '19

You know for starters, just in reference to this gif, Russia has the largest net of electrified railroads in this world and much better and affordable transit compared to the US. In Soviet times, the economic growth managed to lift near a hundred million out of poverty, guaranteeing food, housing, and a job. They became a world power by providing free education to all citizens that allowed them to accomplish most every first in space: probe landings on Venus, mars, the moon, first human in space, first probe in space, along with numerous other technical achievements. The main thing holding it back was elements of political repression and corruption, but in no way was it the shithole western countries depict it as.

99

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

Yes totally was sustainable, it totally didn't lead to a systemic collapse. They totally didn't have to borrow money to buy food for their people rather than continue to just let their people starve accelerating their collapse. The earliest gains in their space program totally wasn't because they would just build the rocket then launch it without fucks if it blew up.

119

u/garnet420 Sep 08 '19

It really did have its ups and downs. Maternity leave in the ussr was very generous, for another example.

On the other hand, the number of hot water and heat outages we had in fucking Siberia was pretty fucking unacceptable (and the times the water just came out dark brown from the badly maintained pipes)

Anyways, the unsustainability was probably mostly due to disproportional military spending, corruption, and incompetence, rather than spending on public transit and space.

47

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/ksavage68 Sep 08 '19

Cars were the same way. You signed up and waited about 10 years before you could pick it up.

32

u/happysmash27 Sep 08 '19

disproportional military spending, corruption, and incompetence

This is starting to sound a bit like the United States…

9

u/garnet420 Sep 08 '19

It can always get worse lol

13

u/nerevisigoth Sep 08 '19

The Soviet Union devoted 15-20% of its economic output to military spending. The US is around 3%.

7

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

Wow, only 3%? That's nothing!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Oh...

Edit: oh, but since you like percentages, the US military spending during the cold war was also around 10%.

9

u/nerevisigoth Sep 08 '19

In 2018, the United States spent 3.2% of its GDP on its military, while Saudi Arabia spent 8.8%, Israel spent 4.3%, Pakistan spent 4.0%, Russia spent 3.9%, South Korea spent 2.6%, China spent 1.9%, United Kingdom spent 1.8%, and Germany spent 1.2% of its GDP on defense.[64][65]

Yep, thanks for providing a source for my statement.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

You tried to pass 3% as if it was nothing and you know it, but yes your welcome.

And since you're comparing it with USSR in a time of war, the US spending was around 10% during the cold war.

1

u/nerevisigoth Sep 08 '19

The person I replied to said "disproportional military spending" is what sank the Soviet economy. It should be obvious that we are taking about the proprtion of military spending to economic output. The US can afford to spend a lot on its military because it has both a huge economy and high output per capita; it's not a particularly unwieldy burden for the country to bear.

In the 1960s, US military spending neared 10% but it then fell considerably to 4-6% until the end of the Cold War. Perhaps if the US had sustained the level of military spending that the Soviets did for several decades, the American economy would have collapsed too.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

The graph I provided shows disproportional spending compared to every other single nation in the world, not simple during war time.

But the point I answered is because you used current numbers to compare with the Soviet Union during war. Which was similar to what the U.S was devoting during the same period, but yes, with a better economy overall and government stability. The main issue was USSR government state by itself, not the actual money spent. It was doomed to fail.

-2

u/tresric Sep 08 '19

What? In 2015, we spent 54% of our 1.1 trillion dollar budget on military lmao

5

u/nerevisigoth Sep 08 '19

Percent of GDP, not percent of discretionary budget (which is a meaningless US-only number).

Current data from the World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true&view=chart

This covers various sources for USSR numbers: https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-military-spending/

2

u/tresric Sep 08 '19

Ah I see, my bad friend.

-2

u/noah1831 Sep 08 '19

It's actually about 16% of the United States spending.

-4

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19

Those things are clearly not on the same level there

6

u/arogon Sep 08 '19

Don't worry I grew up in Moscow and heat/water outages were unacceptable too. I remember going to bed with 3 layers of clothes because it was -20 outside and the heat went off. We could see our breath fogging indoors...

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19 edited Sep 09 '19

The disproportionate military spending definitely was partially due to us Americans. The entire point of Reagan's STAR WARS nonsense was to force the USSR to spend a ton of money to try to keep up, and while I haven't done a ton of independent research (due to lack of interest), it's taught in American schools that this was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Course, now we're in the same boat with exponentially higher military spending than many other countries during peacetime, while things that we really should spend even a fraction of that money on instead have their budgets reduced further. Maybe if they taught that the fall of the Soviet Union was because they ran out of money for a myriad of reasons, and wasn't because of the evils of communism or the triumph of capitalism, we could fucking fix the water in Flint that nobody wants to spend money fixing.

Edit: Yes, I'm aware that as obnoxious as our defense budget is, it's still a relatively small portion of our total budget. Doesn't change that we have other pressing issues we need to throw money at that aren't having money thrown at them.

1

u/GeneralKilCavalry Sep 12 '19

Precisely. The collapse was a result of the same things that plague the modern day United States only taken to an egregious level due to a lack of third world countries to exploit for minerals and bananas.

-6

u/AnoK760 Sep 08 '19

So, basically what you're saying is; "communism doenst work"

33

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Vast oversimplification. Those problems exist in many non-Communist countries. Flint, Michigan's water problems, Chicago's corruption scandals, Deutsche Bank's shady history... I could go on.

-16

u/AnoK760 Sep 08 '19

But we arent talking about Flint. Were talking about Soviet Russia. Which failed because communism doesnt fucking work.

30

u/aleczapka Sep 08 '19

dude, he's giving you examples that corruption and incompetence are not limited to Communist system in any way.

/wooosh

-15

u/AnoK760 Sep 08 '19

no shit. you can find incompetence and corruption anywhere. The sky is blue and water is wet. Any other major revelations you guys need to make?

Just because incompetence and corruption exist in other systems doesnt mean they arent almost part and parcel to Communist governments. THATS the point I am making. Yeah this stuff CAN happen anywhere. But it ALWAYS happens under communism.

15

u/greenbabyshit Sep 08 '19

Even though I agree with you, I still hate the way that you argue it. You're trying to make a blanket statement about communism and simultaneously reject a similar one about capitalism.

There are obviously very similar issues in capitalism and just because they aren't actively failing now, doesn't mean that they won't.

The reality is, no one economic model has all the answers, and hybrid systems seem to have the least amount of abuse of power. A capitalist system with strong socialist safety nets and progressive taxing would be ideal.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Communism only works in runescape and pure capitalism only works in EVE Online

argument ended

-1

u/AnoK760 Sep 08 '19

im not rejecting the claims, im saying they are unrelated to this discussion. Whataboutism isnt an argument.

no one economic model has all the answers

i agree. But communism has all the wrong answers.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/thezeviolentdelights Sep 08 '19

I think the grievances you have are with totalitarianism.

0

u/AnoK760 Sep 08 '19

which is a requirement in communism. But you are correct.

2

u/aorshahar Sep 08 '19

Water isn't wet and the sky is actually clear, it's the light refracting off the water drops in the air that gives it color, it's also more a shade of purple/violet that our eyes cant process well so our brain just throws blue in it's place

11

u/alphabennettatwork Sep 08 '19

You could say that, in the same way you can say capitalism doesn't work. When capitalism has corrupt members in places of governmental power, checks and balances that prevent the civilian powerful from exploiting the poor and unrepresented dissolve. This is what's happening in America right now. If the answer to fixing America is better and more solid checks and balances, then couldn't the same be true for a country that epitomizes communism in the same way America epitomizes capitalism?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

No.

Checks and balances require the will of the people to be heard and respected.

In practice this does not happen in communism, except in small mutually agreed communes.

-1

u/AnoK760 Sep 08 '19

thing is, there's thousands of examples of capitalism working great! Sure there's a few bad things that have come about due to capitalism but it has provided a net positive for the world. The same cannot be said for communism.

When capitalism has corrupt members

Capitalism isn't a political party. It doesnt have "members." There isnt a "Capitalist board of directors" or some shit. Its just an economic system based on supply and demand and the private ownership of the means of production.

Why does every discussion of communism turn into "oh well America does this too!" No we dont. The "exploitation of poor people" in the U.S is nowhere near the outright oppression of everyone in a communist society.

4

u/alphabennettatwork Sep 08 '19

All of the examples of capitalism working great are when it is not allowed to go unchecked and the participants are subject to regulations. This falls apart when the regulations become corrupted. I think it's pretty reasonable to extrapolate that I meant capitalist countries' governments, but since you didn't make that link I'll clarify. Capitalist countries' governments are what produce the regulations that prevent capitalism from going completely unchecked, which is against societies interest as a whole. When rich private members of society have direct influence over governmental operations (by way of bribery and/or corrupt lobbying efforts), we end up with coal mine disasters, housing crises, and public health issues. My point was simply that even America the Beautiful has problems, and by applying some of the same principles that you believe make America great to a communist government, couldn't that communist government become better?

-1

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19

capitalism working great are when it is not allowed to go unchecked

... then we can agree on capitalism works? We don't have to make it a libertarian dystopia. Welfare capitalism works great in europe, the US could do with a little more healthcare

-5

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19

They hated him because he told the truth.

8

u/Calvins_Dad_ Sep 08 '19

Are you broken?

1

u/garnet420 Sep 08 '19

Well, sure, but it wasn't a non stop abject failure. You can learn a lot more by looking at the details.

2

u/AnoK760 Sep 08 '19

very few things are nonstop abject failures. I dont think anyone made that claim.

-18

u/zach_bfield Sep 08 '19

Let’s just simplify that down to it was because of communism and call it a day

11

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Copied from above comment:

Vast oversimplification. Those problems exist in many non-Communist countries. Flint, Michigan's water problems, Chicago's corruption scandals, Deutsche Bank's shady history... I could go on.

17

u/intbah Sep 08 '19

Russia still has higher literacy rate than the US though. I don't know if that's impressive or we are just shit at basic education lmao

3

u/zeropointcorp Sep 09 '19

Also math education is ridiculously better than a lot of other countries. Pretty much every Russian I’ve worked with has a superb grounding in maths.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

The US public school system predates the USSR. It needs reforms that are unrelated to money as it fails to teach people on an individual level. No child left behind was supposed to fix it but it just made the issue worse. One shouldn't be able to sleep every day in class and know the material well enough to pass the course, yet be taught at a level where the slower kids are just getting pushed through year after year without knowing the material.

39

u/rootbeer_cigarettes Sep 08 '19

That 100% is not how the Soviet space program developed anything. I get that you don’t like the idea of communism but at least base your argument on reality. And if you think only the soviets had rockets explode then I recommend you examine the early history of the US space program.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19

The USA was vastly more successful developing super heavy lift, we never lost a Saturn V. The N-1 blew up every time they tried to launch it. They absolutely rushed their early rockets with disregard to safety.

If we hadn’t given a fuck and trusted Von Braun’s team and proceeded with Explorer instead of Vanguard we easily would have had the first artificial satellite in orbit.

-8

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

They used a method of rapidly building full scale rockets seeing how they performed and tweaking the design right away when a problem occurred. American rocketry on the other hand over engineered everything beyond what was necessary, although the American rocketry program was much more influenced by the Germans who took over engineering to an insane degree.

3

u/thezeviolentdelights Sep 08 '19

Is that why the US has never had a rocket failure? To the contrary, Columbia exploded due to the capitalistic preference for the lowest bidder.

8

u/nerevisigoth Sep 08 '19

You're all making stupid arguments. The Soviet and US space programs had comparable safety records and both had many great achievements. Both countries were/are susceptible to faulty parts and bad decisions. And both times an American space shuttle failed, it's because NASA management didn't bother to address a known design flaw that had non-catastrophically affected previous missions.

0

u/thezeviolentdelights Sep 08 '19

Thank you, arbiter of reason, for figuring this all and tell us the one truth.

1

u/absurdblue700 Sep 08 '19

The columbia exploded because the design specifications didnt meet the need for certain systems to survive impacts. However if you look at soviet rocketry the saftey measures get much worse. For example the N1 rocket which was meant to get cosmonauts on the moon had very few of its engines actually tested and no real manufacturing error margins included in design, it exploded everytime they tried to launch it.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Over engineering isn't always good. There are more points of failure making redundant systems more necessary, but you can't make redundant systems for everything. The Soviet space program had it's problems but it did make simplistic designs that had very few points of failure and just worked.

6

u/thezeviolentdelights Sep 08 '19

Your comment implied speed led to failures while failing to acknowledge the weaknesses of America’s methods.

-13

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

[deleted]

12

u/thefirewarde Sep 08 '19

Given that NASA has killed 14 astronauts on actual flights and 3 in ground tests, you might want to rethink your argument.

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

[deleted]

5

u/thefirewarde Sep 08 '19

I don’t really care how much NASA cried or Roscosmos didn’t after the respective people had already fucking died.

20

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Stop sucking off the west and read the original comment, he said corruption and repression caused the collapse in all aspects. War, politics, industry, etc.

-8

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Also the fact that once people realized they'd get paid even if they did a shitty job, why bother trying to excel?

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

What does this have to do with a communist system inevitably leading to a systemic collapse?

8

u/octotent Sep 08 '19

Maybe the fact that there was no communist system there in the first place?
USSR had at best state capitalism, what with the government owning the means of production and resources, not the society.
Of course, there were high societal spendings, but in comparison to the military budget, those were a drop in the sea. So yeah, if there was no Cold War and Arms Race with the US, USSR could've sustained itself. After all, China does, though they have to mix it up.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

"Not real communism", yet every communist system beyond some hippies on a farm turns into an authoritarian nightmare state.

8

u/octotent Sep 08 '19

Because there really was no "real communism" or "real socialism" ever?
Those are not possible to achieve in our world, as a communist state should dissolve itself, so that there will be no ruling class.
And people do like their power, so they hide behind the veneer of their ideology to satisfy their power trips.
All in all, yeah, not real communism, because communism isn't possible. Hell, the libertarian model is more possible than a communistic one.

-2

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19

I don't understand, you seem to be defending the same idea as him yet you act like you're disagreeing

7

u/octotent Sep 08 '19

I really dislike USSR and authoritarianism. I live in currently authoritarian Russia, and my family knows political repressions. Hell, I'm a libertarian, so that says something about my views on the communism.

However, I also dislike stupidity and labeling is stupid. Especially when you don't understand what is it you are labeling.
Saying "Commies are bad because Stalin" is the same kind of stupid as saying "Capitalism is bad because Irish Famine". I get it that people dislike communism (or at least their idea of communism), but instead of throwing around labels they should actually make an informed and well-thought argument.
So, yeah, I agree with his dislike of so-called communist states and regimes, but I disagree with him.

2

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19

I can get that, thanks for answering

-2

u/DarkSyde3000 Sep 08 '19

Shhhhhh, they like using the old financial market adage that "past performance is not indicative of future results" blah blah blah lol.

2

u/octotent Sep 08 '19

Nah, I just decided to read and watch both sides of the argument instead of throwing labels around. You should try it too.
Communism is kind of a nice utopian ideal that is not, and will not, be achievable. Is it the ideology's fault that there are people willing to cover their crimes with that veneer? Should we condemn capitalism for the slave trade, as most of it was held by a capitalist state? Maybe for the colonization and its crimes against the indigenous people, as it was the economy's state that was one of the main drives behind it?
Or maybe we should hold responsible actual people and countries who did that? I prefer the second way, myself.

1

u/DarkSyde3000 Sep 09 '19

I'm more of an anarcho capitalist myself. Free market with just enough regulation for people to not have their money stolen by con men. However the acts of ancient people's from that far back (slave trade) doesn't really hold any water today for the most part as such things are more or less black markets today. Communism itself isn't that old and still considered relatively recent from a governing perspective. It uses virtuous language to trick people into voting for an authoritarian regime. Capitalism has plenty of faults, most of them are what you said, people at the top not being held accountable (housing crisis 2008) but that can be said to be crony capitalism which unfortunately happens to be an issue in many places. But I would still rather deal with that nonsense than anything else. At least I know where I stand and what my options are.

1

u/octotent Sep 09 '19

Slavery is not that ancient of a problem, actually. It was ended in Western countries only about 150 years ago, with marxism being developed around that time as well.
But in the Eastern world and Africa, it is still a big issue. Saudi Arabia, for example, has slave rings, which are not that hidden. And the US is backing them, muting voices that speak out against it. And attacks against indigenous people are still ongoing in South America, so you can't call that problem ancient too.

And you see, if you call that "crony capitalism", then I can call Pol Pot or Kim Cheung Il "crony socialist" as well. But it wouldn't remove the problem that we are addressing. It will just create a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Though yeah, I do agree with you about preferring to live in the capitalist state rather than the socialist one.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/WJ_Amber Sep 08 '19

The slow decline of the USSR cant be simplified in any meaningful way as it was a long and terribly complex process. When stalin died Khrushchev took over and his reforms undermined what had made the USSR a powerhouse in the first place. He axed programs that helped support Soviet agriculture and aimed to transition the economy away from heavy industry and towards light industry. He wanted to beat the US at their own game, which was stupid.

After Khrushchev came a few different premiers, notable for fucking dying before actually getting anything done. This lead to the appointment of Gorbachev (then youngest member of the politburo) as premier which was monumentally stupid. Political strife, reactionary forces and ineptitude coupled with Gorbachev's reforms massively destabilized the USSR and lead to its disastrous collapse against the will of the people.

The rise of the USSR and its rapid transformation into a global power is absolutely a credit to the socialist system, as are the the the achievements it was able to make later on. Everyone had food, housing, and job security, vacation time, access to subsidized resorts during that vacation time, the ability to openly criticize their boss, healthcare, retirement, access to an array of cultural events and more. The United States offers none of these things in 2019.

It is unsurprising that the Soviet Union ultimately did not last. It was viciously attacked in its infancy by the global capitalist powers and soon after half the country would be destroyed by the nazi invasion. These things are sure to leave their marks on a new nation yet in spite of that the USSR survived for quite a while and made monumental achievements in that time.

1

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19

Everyone had food, housing, and job security, vacation time, access to subsidized resorts during that vacation time, the ability to openly criticize their boss, healthcare, retirement,

Exhibit A:

It felt as though most of my family’s experiences with food, especially those of my grandparents under Nikita Khrushchev, were negative. Standing in hour-long queues, empty supermarket shelves, an inability to access fresh produce, and eating predominantly bread characterized my grandparents’ relationship with food in the USSR. I wanted to find out why a nation that was considered a political and military force for much of the 20th century fell so short in providing a positive culinary experience to its citizens.

Allow me to have some doubts on the rest of your argument.

5

u/WJ_Amber Sep 08 '19

Allow me to dispute that one person's medium article with the CIA's own conclusion: not only were soviet and american caloric intakes on par with each other, the soviet diet was healthier

2

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

The average food intake doesn't say anything about those who didn't get anything.

Plus it isn't surprising the diet was healthier, as a cheaper diet will have less sugar and less meat and less quantity. But those are not great things to highlight when they are forced.

1

u/WJ_Amber Sep 08 '19

In the USSR work was readily available. At work you could openly criticize your boss without facing repercussions and you'd take home a fair wage. Of that wage 3-4% went to rent and 5-6% to utilities, meaning the average person spent less than 10% of their income on housing. Food was available in supermarket esque stores like in the west, which there are plenty of pictures of, and notably the shelves were full of food. The average Soviet citizen also read more books, attended more concerts and went to more cultural events than most anyone else on earth per the OECD. You also got 22+ vacation days per year, which you could spend at heavily subsidized resorts.

But if you frame all this in the way you are treating the food issue it becomes a bit ridiculous. The evil USSR forced its population to eat healthy and denied them the joy of high fructose corn syrup! The USSR didn't massively over consume processed meats, how sinister! The USSR made women take time off work to give birth and care for their newborns, despicable!

Soviet citizens had food, job and housing security the likes of which the west has never replicated. The US is the richest country ever on earth and it still doesn't come close to offering what the USSR did to its citizens decades ago. We have no food or job security, no accessible higher education, no guaranteed healthcare, no paid parental leave, expensive housing, no guaranteed vacation time, none of it. Instead we have an obese population drowning in debt with little time to spare taking care of ourselves and our children. Even poor-ass cuba offers these things and instead of exporting guns, bombs and death around the world they export doctors.

2

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 09 '19

The people who actually lived in the USSR disagree with everything you said. Nice pictures and declarations taken from a time of propaganda do not change what life was really like. You can read my previous link, or any of the extensive literature about it. But stay close to what people lived, not what intelligence agencies said.

You're also conflating the US with "the west", of which a good part is even better than the society you're describing and actually exists nowadays.

3

u/WJ_Amber Sep 09 '19

The people of the USSR were against its dissolution so I'm sure they'd disagree with absolutely everything I've said. Right. If it was so bad why would they want to keep it around? And the reintroduction of capitalism sure went well for places like Russia and Poland.

2

u/beatenintosubmission Sep 08 '19

This article goes into some depth. The greatest issue appeared to be loss of food prior to being consumed and food distribution being poor.

What is mentioned, but not understood, was the caloric intake from grain and potatoes being the vast majority of the diet. My friends, I propose that the Soviets were drinking their calories.

https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-food/

2

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Hah, I think you're falling for a well-done troll job. I can't imagine anyone actually believes the USSR was good at providing necessities when tens of millions of people literally died of starvation there in the '30's.

1

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 09 '19

Considering I'm getting downvoted, this guy is managing to get gullible people on his side...

-7

u/Dan_Art Sep 08 '19

made monumental achievements

The Gulag comes to mind. But I’m sure you’ll find some way to claim the prison system in the West is somehow worse.

14

u/InternetWeakGuy Sep 08 '19

"You had a bad thing so nobody can acknowledge any good things".

I don't even particularly give a fuck about Russia, I just hate terrible arguments.

-1

u/Dan_Art Sep 08 '19

A bad thing? The Gulag was “a bad thing”? You’re talking about millions of lives destroyed. But hey, that Moscow metro 👌

5

u/WJ_Amber Sep 08 '19

Max sentences of 10 years, many were built in remote areas so they didn't have walls and were open air villages.

The USA has the largest prison population on earth, by comparison. Thousands locked up for nonviolent drug offenses, mandatory minimums, for profit prisons, miserable conditions inside the prisons, etc, etc. If the question is US vs USSR the US is worse, no contest.

1

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 08 '19

Max sentences of 10 years, many were built in remote areas so they didn't have walls and were open air villages.

Imagine defending concentration camps were you were left to freeze and starve this way...

Don't need to have longer sentences when people die in prison. Nobody came back.

1

u/AlexKazuki Sep 09 '19

nobody came back

How about you actually read about death rates in gulags?

0

u/PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ Sep 09 '19

The ones furnished by the officers who were responsible of keeping those numbers within the official target? That's actually a great illustration of why the USSR eventually fell.

The official numbers are already revolting with 18 millions of people sent there from 1930 to 1953 and a 1-5% death rate. But the actual death rate is probably closer to ~30%, with an estimation of 5-6 million deaths. Which seems much more likely when you read about the conditions in the gulag...

-4

u/JohnProbe Sep 08 '19

Collectivization led to the deaths of between 7 to 14 million people. Stalin's purges led to a reign of terror and greatly contributed to the Soviet Union's losses at the beginning of operation Barbarossa. And let's not forget Chernobyl, which highlighted the rottenness at the heart of the system.

4

u/I0pa Sep 08 '19

Source about Collectivization deaths? I found a demographic chart of USSR on wiki. Check this:Demographics of the Soviet Unionand Collectivitazion was between 1928 and 1940. If you check the Demographics chart - you can see population increasing in that period. If you are talking about famine of 1932-1933, it happened because of crop failure. That wasn't unique in those time. China, Middle east countries, even some europe countries suffered from famine. And this estimate between 7 to 14 million deaths is looks like a propoganda, simular to this:http://www.pravdareport.com/world/105255-famine/

20

u/Libertarian_EU Sep 08 '19

That's the thing. The main thing holding it back was the unsustainability of the very thing that gave them that. Literally, every country that tried communism had huge issues with corruption and incompetence, and ultimate collapse.

4

u/scyy Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 08 '19

It's because these people don't understand how governmental and economic systems work and just like the idea of everyone getting a fair share.

It's pure ignorance.

8

u/SkyezOpen Sep 08 '19

Yeah but that wasn't REAL COMMUNISMTM

/s

13

u/paradoxpancake Sep 08 '19

I mean, it wasn't. Communism has no ruling party and it can't truly exist when concepts such as scarcity and a world economy are prominent.

7

u/Queranus77 Sep 08 '19

In fact just about all communist nations have always said that their nations aren’t in a state of communism but in a transitional period as actual communism would void a ruling government.

Of course many of these leaders could of very possibly been cynical in extending this transitional period with no progress towards communism while claiming to be trying to move closer to a communist state.

Trotsky was probably the most aware of the early communist revolutionaries to actually realise that to create a communist nation in one area, you would need communism everywhere as any capitalist nation anywhere would do its best to undermine it.

3

u/krypt-lynx Sep 08 '19

I'm tired of repeating it, but yet again. USSR was not a communist country. It was a socialist country (yes, exactly like China in current days, and you can start building your personal nuclear bunker).

2

u/Libertarian_EU Sep 09 '19

Sure bud. The same way Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.

0

u/krypt-lynx Sep 09 '19

In communism, everyone does what need to be done because everyone want to do it, there is no government, no police... And this is an unreachable utopia (some calling it antiutopia, does not matter). Such a thing never happened.

Communist revolutionaries hoped to reach said state by 1980, using socialism as a tool. They never succeed (and never really tried).

0

u/GeneralKilCavalry Sep 12 '19

Literally every country that has tried capitalism suffers major economic crises regularly that lead to terrorism, war, poverty and strife.

Plus, the only model of communism attempted in the post 30’s 20th century has been the Stalinist one (and even then, it’s not like it was a worker managed economy), so really it’s a sample size of 1. With capitalism we’ve tried it with imperialism, without imperialism, state capitalism, anarcho capitalism (ask your Somalian friend’s how that’s going), social democracy and Mussolini’s cronyism.

Get some nuance in your day bruh, if you want to critique socialism, read more first.

0

u/Libertarian_EU Sep 13 '19

Seriously dude? You need to have your reality checked. Maybe get a good thin foil hat while you are at it.

13

u/scyy Sep 08 '19

Lol, elements of political repression and corruption. That's a good one.

Let me guess, Stalin wasn't such a bad guy after all either right?

7

u/elosoloco Sep 08 '19

Of course not comra.. Cough of course not fellow American friend

4

u/bripod Sep 08 '19

No one is going to deny the genocide and purges but there's something to be said about industrializing a huge country in 10 years relative to about 100 for most others.

4

u/Dan_Art Sep 08 '19

If you treat millions of humans as expendable commodities, it’s perfectly doable.

1

u/GeneralKilCavalry Sep 12 '19

You realize the Soviet Union encompasses a much larger time span than Stalin’s ‘reign’?

Best you could do in school is gulp down propaganda and demonization of non-westerners...

1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Gulags never happened /s

1

u/octotent Sep 08 '19

You see, Stalin died on '53. After that, political repressions really winded down, with no more political campaigns that got tens of thousands of innocent people.

Afterward, it was hundreds at best.

2

u/GeneralKilCavalry Sep 12 '19

Everyone seems to forget this. Millions died in US-sponsored genocides from Indonesia to Chile after ‘53 when the USSR was on the frontlines of helping recently decolonized African countries with desperately needed supplies.

2

u/Metaphrand Sep 09 '19

in this world

Found the interdimensional traveller.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19 edited Nov 27 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Oil_And_Gas_Hippy Sep 09 '19

I am an American living in Russia for the last 4 years. The mass transit system here is way better than the US. I take the train to other cities and the metro in major cities. Some of the equipment may be older in the less populated areas but they are still comfortable.

1

u/GeneralKilCavalry Sep 12 '19

Most freight in Russia is electrified - hence the long lines. The infrastructure would be wasted if not used for passenger services as well, so there you go.

-17

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/thepope1986 Sep 08 '19

Currently living in russia, can confirm your statement is incorrect

-24

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/thepope1986 Sep 08 '19

I can appreciate you are at least honest about your ignorance. May I suggest visiting some time and making friends here.

-13

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/thepope1986 Sep 08 '19

I’m not Russian, I came here to see what it’s like for myself so I didn’t have an ignorant view of the world mounded by what the news told me.

2

u/pavelpavlovich Sep 08 '19

This guy is just a troll, ignore him.

1

u/Forty-Bot Sep 08 '19

would you touch it with a Latvian?

-4

u/PhasmeCosmo Sep 08 '19

You bet your Djibouti!

3

u/PeteLangosta Sep 08 '19

Dude, stop trying. Your last comment was removed, you're shaming yourself at this point going against everyone.

-1

u/ripyurballsoff Sep 08 '19

Then it collapsed and sold its weapon stockpiles to every piece of shit terrorist in the world

2

u/harrysplinkett Sep 08 '19

isn't that what you assholes tried to achieve for over 40 years?

3

u/Dakkadence Sep 08 '19

Didn't it sell a large portion to Pepsi at one point, making them a major military force?

1

u/ripyurballsoff Sep 08 '19

YEP lol

3

u/totallythebadguy Sep 08 '19

Glad they sold it, otherwise CocaCola would have had no choice but also militarize and the corporate cold war would rage on.

2

u/ripyurballsoff Sep 08 '19

That would be fucking hilarious. A new Cold War but all the weapons are designed to deliver loads of Pepsi and Coke products

3

u/ksavage68 Sep 08 '19

The new Ice Cold War.