Saledovil @ Saledovil @sh.itjust.works

Posts

11

Comments

784

Joined

2 yr. ago

Exactly, your material and historical analysis of the Soviet Union is based off of NATOpedia.

So, got the real numbers for the election results somewhere?

And what was his job in January 1991?

I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven’t replied other than by making up stuff on the spot.

I must say that I haven't read your sources. So I don't even have a way of telling what they say.

My thesis mostly hinges on the Soviet Union not being democratic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union. People could only vote in favor or against the Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans, which always won >99% of the votes. This is impossible to achieve in a functioning democracy, especially not over decades

That “Holodomor” is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year

You also need to consider that the Soviet Union kept the information classified until the 1980s, when it was declassified as part of Glasnost. So, why did they keep it hidden for literal decades?

Looking at those graphs you posted, it seems like Russia didn't break 70 until 2015, which Brazil reached around the year 2000. And why does Russia's life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed? And why does did it mostly decline between 1975 and 2005? But yeah, other than that, it's a quite impressive growth. Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?

given how universal access was I such things and how it stopped being the case, why did the “owning class” previously grant the working class access to such healthcare, education, housing, foodstuffs, energy, public transit, infrastructure, sports facilities, and even holiday resorts?

Based on the personal accounts of a relative who visited the Soviet Union close to its collapse, the answer is that the working class didn't have access to such things. One thing the Soviet Union had was hotels were you could only stay if you could pay with Western currency. People needing to line up for basic goods.

And lets not forget that the Soviet Union isn't around anymore. Your supposed worker's paradise collapsed, and the ones at helm got rich in the process.

What was Boris Yeltsin's job in 1995?

All you had to do was to read Boris Yeltsin's CV, CJ!

Oh come on, you only had to read that little box on the right.

No, you're not. You support the group that betrayed the Russian revolution. Making you a reactionary.

I suppose I didn't explain it well enough.

Well, it's ten PM. I'll read it later.

So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.

I'm blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn't communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You're also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.

Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it's quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.

Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.

It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history

succesful

Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That's the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as "successful nation-wide land collectivization".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin

What stopped them from having higher INCOME?

Nothing, they could probably have written down any number and that would have been their salary.

why if they already de-facto controlled everything, did they have comparably much lower INCOME.

Because money isn't real. If you control everything, you don't need to buy stuff, hence money is literally meaningless.

Well, I suppose I shouldn't waste my time talking to a reactionary shitlib.

They weren't doing that when Stalin invaded them. Stalin squandered any advantage he could have possibly gotten by collaborating with the Nazis through invading Finland. Which ironically, pushed the Fins to actually ally with the Nazis.

And why the hell did Stalin invade Poland? The guy sounds less and less competent the more you learn about him, doesn't he?

The people who took over the government of Russia were the same people who ran the communist party of the USSR. For example the first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin. That's how they were able to steal all the stuff.

Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.

The hardliners of the communist party prevented the needed reforms to prevent the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Unions, which would have prevented, or at least mitigated, the "millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991". And if Lenin hadn't betrayed the revolution, we wouldn't have had the Holodomor. The Soviet Union fucked Ukraine first through malice, then through incompetence.

If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.

The one mostly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is the communist party of the Soviet Union.

You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.

At least I'm coherent, unlike you. The fault for the collapse of the Soviet Unions lies by its incompetent government.

Why the fuck did Stalin think invading Finland was a good idea?

That declassified document you posted doesn't say a whole lot. Basically boils down to "we gave them a phone call". If that's all the proof there is for collaboration, then your evidence is pathetic.

Secondly, you notice that blue line going up almost vertically? I've already lined out my definition of ownership, there's also a second one, namely that you own something if the sovereign legally recognizes you as the owner. What happened was that the Communist party went from controlling the means of production without accountability (de facto owning them), to being the recognized owner of the means of production (de jure owning them). The graph you posted just tracks the latter, that's why it looks like the Soviet Union had low wealth inequality.

You see where the blue line goes up vertically? That's when they go from de facto ownership to de jure ownership.