• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It was complicated. Kruschev, and later Gorbachev’s reforms really weakened the Socialist system because they didn’t properly retain strong control of the larger firms and heavy industry (a lesson the CPC took to heart), however the CIA and really the US absolutely worked tirelessly to weaken it. The Soviets also had to spend a much larger portion of their production on the millitary in order to keep parity with the US, meaning that development rates began to slow.

      • ambidexterity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Oh, so US is guilty in the collapse of USSR bc US were just that good that USSR need to overexert itself to keep parity with them.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The US played a part, I outright stated that it was a complicated situation made more complicated by having the world’s largest Empire, the US, permanently hostile and putting nukes on their doorstep.

      • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        What is complicated about it?

        The reforms you refer to allowed for political dissent. If the Soviet Union was some worker’s paradise, then allowing people complain wouldn’t change anything.

        The simple reality is that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship that only survived as long as it did because it was a dictatorship. Once people had the option of opposing Communist rule, they did. And that is what killed the Soviet Union. Not some conspiracy by the United States or the kulaks.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          The reforms didn’t just allow for “political dissent,” they worked against the Socialist system, that was based on central planning. Rather than running in a more efficient manner, it ran against itself.

          Further, nobody says the Soviet Union was a “worker’s paradise.” It had tremendous strides for workers, but it wasn’t perfect by any means.

          The Soviet Union wasn’t a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.

          Read Blackshirts and Reds.

          • Stalin:

            Do you really believe that we could have retained power and have had the backing of the vast masses for 14 years by methods of intimidation and terrorization? No, that is impossible. The tsarist government excelled all others in knowing how to intimidate. It had long and vast experience in that sphere. The European bourgeoisie, particularly the French, gave tsarism every assistance in this matter and taught it to terrorize the people. Yet, in spite of that experience and in spite of the help of the European bourgeoisie, the policy of intimidation led to the downfall of Tsarism.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Exactly, and this didn’t last for 14 years, but nearly the entire 20th century, and is succeeded by other AES countries like the PRC.

                  • ambidexterity@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    How exactly is USSR succeeded by PRC? And how exactly 70 years is not pathetic if history has countless countries that existed for many centuries and some even existed for several millenia? Egypt existed for like 3000 years. I guess absolute monarchy is just that better than communism

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Bit of a non-sequitor, I could bring up Kent State and use that to say the US isn’t a democracy. The US has a far worse track record than the Soviets.

              • ambidexterity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 day ago

                Soviets have civil war with 6 million losses in their track record lol. I’d like to see what USA has to compete with that.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Numerous mass killings and/or genocides in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, East Timor, Cambodia, and much, much more.

                  • ambidexterity@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    I thought we were talking about US/USSR killing their own civilians…

                    And wtf with Cambodia? It was communists who killed 3 million ppl there

          • Antiproton@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 day ago

            The Soviet Union was, if not a traditional dictatorship, absolutely a totalitarian autocracy. Stalin was a brutal dictator and his successors were chosen by the communist party. Elections in the USSR were for show.

            Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people. The USSR’s implementation of communism was so bad, it’s become cliche.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people.

              People like you should be forced to live under conditions like Tsarist Russia.

            • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              “Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people”, said the romanovs.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Allow me to repeat myself:

              The Soviet Union wasn’t a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.

              Read Blackshirts and Reds.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Yep. Democracy doesn’t mean “choose between parties,” it’s about the actual impact you can have on policy. More people in China feel that they have a voice in politics than people in the US, despite the US having 2 parties.

                  • pcalau12i@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    Choosing between parties is arguably less democratic because in many countries with such a system, like the USA, you basically just have corporations/corporate media choosing the candidates, so your “choice” is between corporate candidates, so corporations always win. There is no option to reject the nominee entirely, while in China’s system you can reject the nominee. you can just straight up veto candidates.

                    Westerners often also look at the very end of the process and ignore everything leading up to it. They will say “there’s only one candidate on the ballot!” as proof it’s undemocratic (even though this happens all the time in the US too…). But this ignores the entire democratic process leading up to how the candidate gets on the ballot in the first place. In Cuba for example, candidates getting on the ballot is a two-year long process resulting from local elections and meetings with mass organizations, but they ignore this entire process and just focus on the final election at the very end.

                  • ambidexterity@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Regarding the impact you make, ppl you vote for can be undemocratically removed from the party by party leadership at any time and therefore must comply fully with the will of the party.

                    Btw, Kalinin’s (the head of the state) wife was held hostage in prison camp by Stalin (party leader). I guess that says as much about great Soviet democracy.

          • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’s what dissent is.

            Nothing you said disputes it being a dictatorship. The people could not choose their leaders, there were no limits on the power of their leaders, er go it was a dictatorship. None of your “pros” matter. And that’s before we get into the lack of freedom of speech and press and total absence of transparency, meaning that I have no reason to trust those supposed accomplishments.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              No, that isn’t what dissent is, it was a fundamental liberalization of the economy that favored private property over public.

              Secondly, they absolutely chose their leaders.

              Finally, you say life expectancy, literacy rates, and worker rights “don’t matter?” That strong, sustained economic growth doesn’t matter? You must be trolling.

              As for distrusting the sources, you can look into them yourselves, they are well-respected.

              • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 day ago

                So, you’re denying that glasnost allowed for political dissent?

                Second, no they didn’t.

                Finally, it does not matter because we were debating whether or not the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, which the literacy rate has nothing to do with.

                Well-respected by Tankies, not by actual historians.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Glasnost allowed for liberalism to expand as an ideology, sure, alongside other reforms that weakened the economy and erased its foundations. You can’t cherry-pick the reforms to make it seem like the system worked poorly and only was dissolved because the “people had a choice.” In fact, most post-Soviet citizens regret the fall of Socialism and prefer it over Capitalism.

                  Read Soviet Democracy.

                  We were debating a great many things, one of which being the economy and the well-being of the people, because that helps explain why it was democratic.

                  Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is quite literally used as a reference on the Wikipedia article for Soviet Democracy. You are incapable of being honest or looking at facts that disprove you because you care more about appearing morally righteous than being correct.

                  • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    “Expand as an ideology” is a strange way to say, “they weren’t shot for disagreeing with the Party.”

                    The reforms didn’t weaken the economy. The economy was weak, therefore there were reforms. And it’s not cherrypicking, the Soviet system worked poorly, objectively.

                    Nostalgia doesn’t prove anything. What they feel now has nothing to do with what the people felt at the time.

                    Read Robert Conquest.

                    No, you denied that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. The GDP does not effect that.

                    And books describing the Soviet Union as a totalitarian dictatorship are used as reference. Wikipedia is providing a variety of opinions of the Soviet government. It’s not declaring Pat Sloan the sole source of truth on the question of human rights in the Soviet Union.

                    You clearly don’t care about being righteous or correct.

              • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 day ago

                We weren’t debating the quality of the Soviet Union. We were debating whether or not it was a dictatorship.