you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

How is this an anti-communist argument? Marxist-Leninist states nationalise industry and pay wages, they do not socialise profits.

Soviet Communism wasn't an economic failure at all, by the way. There are good reasons to oppose communism and none of them are economic. It is the shift to liberal capitalism that reduced Russia from the second biggest economy on the planet to an impoverished third rate power.

[–]Salos60000Pragmatic European Nationalism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It address's the utopian "true" communism ideal that leftoids have ingrained into their empty heads.

Yes it was a failure. Russia was set to economically boom anyway with or without communism. Soviet Russia had the horrific famines of the 30s and post war aswell as that it stagnated rapidly and was always behind the US in literally every field. No it wasn't liberal capitalism either it was just the diseased communist carcess finally dying and the country having to shift its ingrained institutions and economics.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It address's the utopian "true" communism ideal that leftoids have ingrained into their empty heads.

So you are referring to communism proper rather than the "dictatorship of the proletariat", then? Since when are there "companies" and profit sharing mechanisms in communism?

Russia was set to economically boom anyway with or without communism.

So you yourself admit that the Russian economy boomed under communism? You are a very strange man.

Soviet Russia had the horrific famines of the 30s and post war aswell as that it stagnated rapidly and was always behind the US in literally every field.

If wartime famines are enough to discredit an economic system, then there is no such thing as a functional economic system. The Soviet economy stagnated only in the 80s and that was because of bottlenecks related to central planning which would have been overcome if the state had not been dissolved by Gorbachev prior to the development of the necessary technologies. It's also just pure rhetoric to say that the USSR was "behind the US in literally every field". The space race offers us ample enough evidence that this is untrue.

No it wasn't liberal capitalism either it was just the diseased communist carcess finally dying and the country having to shift its ingrained institutions and economics.

There is nothing I can say here because you are plainly wrong. Read up on the transition to capitalism and the effects it had on the economy and living standards.

[–]Salos60000Pragmatic European Nationalism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Both are more or less the same, dictatorship is what communism leads to every single time.

It boomed mainly due to ruthlessness and brutality and definitely not to what it was capable of under capitalism, we had to bail them out during the war.

The Soviet Union wasn't at war in the 30s. The Ukrainian and Kazakh famines were engineered by the state to destroy the nationalist resistance in both regions. Aswell as to mass murder White Christians in Ukraine's case.

It was behind the US objectively in nearly every significant field. There was a book called the grapes of wrath written by an American communist basically about the extreme poor in the US. This book was actually banned in the USSR as it showed the poor under capitalism still get access to basic necessities like food or a car compared to under communism where they had fuck all.

The Russian economy declined due to the new system replacing the horrifically backwards communist system. The country has recovered and is now more prosperous now than any time under communism.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cope.