They were. The large majority of people who lived in the soviet union regret its fall. The introruction of capitalism and the destruction of the socialist system caused metrics like life expectancy, home ownership, quality of life, and more to plummet while poverty, starvation, prostitution, and drug abuse skyrocketed.
do you perhaps know the specifics of the “socialism” fall in now-post-ussr region? Because it was more of introduction of total anarchy and rule of the strongest than it was the introduction of capitalism.
Of course USSR was better than the crysis which consequences we’re suffering to these days.
sorry, it’s not really related to the discussion you had with the lad, i’m just in a rambling mood ig :D
The chaos of the introduction of capitalism, labeled “shock doctrine,” was intrinsically linked to capitalism and private plunder. There’s no real way to compare what happened to a theoretical possibility where socialism was dissolved, and not capitalism but another system took its place.
bro, the 90s of the post-ussr region was literally ruled by gangs and otherwise criminal mob. It had nothing to do with any doctrine, as the politicians didn’t matter much.
And yes, i wholeheartedly agree, we can’t compare any two countries from two different times, even if they occupied the same territory, as we’d inherrently ignore lots of historical context that way.
i fail to see the connection. Literally the same kind of chaos occured when the revolution happened in 1917. Not to mention, that for capitalism to be “introduced” it should be foreign in the first place. USSR, especially late one was quite capitalistic itself, albeit with it’s own uniquie flavor.
Literally the same kind of chaos occured whet the revolution happened in 1917
Seriously you don’t see any difference in popular revolution overthrowing centuries long tyranny and literal foreign agents overthrowing a state contrary to people wishes and establishing comprador tyranny?
USSR, especially late one was quite capitelistic itself
I am starting to suspect you see history not as dialectical process but as set snapshots.
i fail te see the connection
Considering the above, it does not surprise me anymore.
i’m not talking about the overthrowing itself, but rather about what came after. Before leninists established their rule, there was a period of anarchy, just like there was in the 90s, not to mention that for people of a less internationalist view, USSR rule was just as tyrannical.
I am starting to suspect you see history not as dialectical process but as set snapshots.
you’d have to explain to me how my words you quoted made you think what you thought. The way USSR was at the end of it is a result of dialectical process.
What i said there is, while (after NEP) the banking system was nationalized and even small enterprises shut, enterprise is still an enterprise, even the nationalized one. USSR before perestroika is basically a country-wide corporation, and after perestroika it’s just a plain capitalist country, so i don’t see why you oppose ussr to capitalism, when saying that “capitalists came and forced ussr to crumble”. I know that soviet propagenda would claim otherwise, but capitalists were inside all along, they just had monopoly on everything, and were referred to as government.
Call me dumb or whatever for all i said, but i think that eversince people understood that money should circulate rather than be hoarded and kept, anything we do is inherently and unavoidably capitalistic, thus categorizing a subset of people as “capitalists” in opposition to other subset is inherently wrong.
People love getting high on nostalgia when things aren’t looking up well in the present moment. Even many of those who were under fascism are nostalgic of it. That’s the point of nostalgia: only remembering the good parts of the past while pretending the bad never happened.
“sure, the people living there say that it was better under communism, but obviously they’re too stupid and foreign to know what they think. Only I, the enlightened westerner, can truly judge if things are better, which I will do based on vague vibes that I can’t identify the source of”
I mean, sure, those who clawed their way out of the Berlin Wall, vault poled over electric fences in the DMZ, defected with a top secret Soviet plane as insurance to be allowed to stay in the West, and swam the Caribbean to desperately leave communist countries surely love communism.
That doesn’t explain the rise of communist party membership, nor can you wash away the fact that quality of life metrics were higher in the soviet union for the most part than they are today in post-soviet countries.
The metrics probably doesn’t include those who were in gulags and died of famines.
The rise in communist party membership you speak of maybe increased by 100%, when two new members joined an already two member communist party.
Wake me up when communist slogans are getting viral on Tiktok and Instagram, and if communists are getting elected in huge numbers on national level across the world.
They do. For starters, famine was ended after the 1930s (outside of World War II), and prison death rates weren’t astronomically high nor were prison populations particularly high either.
Have you tried reading the primary sources for that article? It implies that the people who think their country is worse off since the fall of the USSR want a return to the USSR. However, the questions that the article doesn’t discuss has a majority of people saying that they value the institutions of democracy very highly, which doesn’t suggest that that’s the case.
The USSR was democratic, so it isn’t in contradiction. I’d prefer more surveys to be taken that directly ask questions on preference for socialism vs capitalism, ie a return to the soviet system directly rather than simply asking if they are better or worse off. What we do know is that in countries like Russia and Belarus, there is a strong resurgance in soviet pride and communist party registration.
Again, I can only suggest reading the primary data, rather than relying on openly biased reporting. One of the key democratic principles which is so highly valued is “honest multiparty elections”.
I do read the primary data, and it’s also true that in many formerly socialist countries there’s surging sympathies for socialism and surging communist party membership.
I mean, you clearly didn’t read the primary data in this case, because if you had you wouldn’t have believed it to support the idea that the people surveyed wanted to return to the soviet era.
I did, and I believe it’s a strong indicator of wishing to return to socialism, especially when combined with other metrics like huge increases in communist party membership and soviet pride.
no wonder, considering how exactly that capitalism looked like, and how “well” people where with handling their finances.
Collapse of the USSR in terms of how destructive it was is comparable to the one of Roman Empire. It was litaral anarchy in the 90s.
Lots of people lost all their money they hoarded in a single moment, simply because just keeping the money hidden in a safe place was considered prime financial safety. And then lots of people lost their money again as they had no idea how to handle their finances properly, and people like Mavrodi emerged with their financial pyramid schemes, promising huge profits for all the investors.
tbf, USSR did great, especially considering that basically whole world pressured and opposed it in many ways. It still managed not only to persist, but also to help other countries. But comparing its economics to even all the combined economics of all the countries that were a part of it at the time is not fair, as USSR had in total more than 70 years to develop, and was occupying vast expances of land that had big cities, lots of fertile soil and just as much of any other resource. If you want to make a more fair comparison, you should compare it to EU.
Compared to other capitalist countries it was worse during Soviet times too. Average US life expectancy at the USSRs peak in 1986 was approx. 75 years old, whereas in the USSR the average is 5 years less… Quite substantial.
Also, where the Soviet Union fairly quickly seemed to plateau off with their life expectancy, the PRC managed to much more continuously trend upwards. Not necessarily faster than the SU at first (which makes sense), but they did manage to keep the momentum whereas the SU did not.
Japan’s life expectancy was even higher than most of those in the west.
Sure, plenty of developing capitalist nations had barely caught up at that point (e.g. South Korea). But they did manage to keep a positive trend going, whereas the SU had levelled off and wasn’t improving anymore.
You said “non-western”. I named two. If you want to shift goalposts further that’s fine but don’t act like you’re being all smart or anything.
Even for other developing countries the overall trend is clear: continuous rise in life expectancy, leveling off as it gets closer to 80. The SU plateaud just below 70 and remained there until its fall (after which it rose again). The vast majority of developing nations do not show this pattern of levelling off early.
Take Iran, or the Philippines, or even Vietnam (bar the civil war). All of them didn’t level off like the Soviets did. Same thing in other socialist countries like Cuba and the PRC.
It indicates a fairly severe mismanagement that the Soviet Union is one of the very, very few countries that managed to keep their life expectancy at 67-68 for over 20 years, when other countries kept rising and a good number had already surpassed them. Only after the year 2000 did they manage a sustained growth in life expectancy, rising to 73 after dropping to 64 (likely levelling off a little now due to the war in Ukraine).
The argument was that under the Soviet Union life was better. That may have been true when compared directly to the very tumultuous fall that directly followed. But the reality is that growth of life expectancy had completely stagnated in Soviet Union (it was even declining very slightly). It only started rising again after Russia had mostly stabilised post-fall, and is now higher than it’s ever been.
Imagine trying to paint “correctly pointing out that Japan and SK are not remotely representative of the developing world in general” as “moving the goal post”. My god, it is so obvious you people just parrot these phrases after seeing them on Reddit and thinking that they’re magic incantations that make you “win” an argument.
That’s not how you phrased your comment. Try being clearer in your phrasing.
Also try responding to the rest of the contents of my reply instead of deflecting by saying “reddit dumb” and thinking that’s winning an argument. I very clearly demonstrated that a wide variety of developing nations did not show the same stagnation in life expectancy that the SU did.
Yeah things were “better” under the Soviet Union.
They certainly were, both better then before and after
They were. The large majority of people who lived in the soviet union regret its fall. The introruction of capitalism and the destruction of the socialist system caused metrics like life expectancy, home ownership, quality of life, and more to plummet while poverty, starvation, prostitution, and drug abuse skyrocketed.
deleted by creator
do you perhaps know the specifics of the “socialism” fall in now-post-ussr region? Because it was more of introduction of total anarchy and rule of the strongest than it was the introduction of capitalism.
Of course USSR was better than the crysis which consequences we’re suffering to these days.
sorry, it’s not really related to the discussion you had with the lad, i’m just in a rambling mood ig :D
The chaos of the introduction of capitalism, labeled “shock doctrine,” was intrinsically linked to capitalism and private plunder. There’s no real way to compare what happened to a theoretical possibility where socialism was dissolved, and not capitalism but another system took its place.
bro, the 90s of the post-ussr region was literally ruled by gangs and otherwise criminal mob. It had nothing to do with any doctrine, as the politicians didn’t matter much.
And yes, i wholeheartedly agree, we can’t compare any two countries from two different times, even if they occupied the same territory, as we’d inherrently ignore lots of historical context that way.
Yes it does happen when capitalism is introduced, it’s a feature of expanding capitalism, either colonial or imperialist.
i fail to see the connection. Literally the same kind of chaos occured when the revolution happened in 1917. Not to mention, that for capitalism to be “introduced” it should be foreign in the first place. USSR, especially late one was quite capitalistic itself, albeit with it’s own uniquie flavor.
Seriously you don’t see any difference in popular revolution overthrowing centuries long tyranny and literal foreign agents overthrowing a state contrary to people wishes and establishing comprador tyranny?
I am starting to suspect you see history not as dialectical process but as set snapshots.
Considering the above, it does not surprise me anymore.
i’m not talking about the overthrowing itself, but rather about what came after. Before leninists established their rule, there was a period of anarchy, just like there was in the 90s, not to mention that for people of a less internationalist view, USSR rule was just as tyrannical.
you’d have to explain to me how my words you quoted made you think what you thought. The way USSR was at the end of it is a result of dialectical process.
What i said there is, while (after NEP) the banking system was nationalized and even small enterprises shut, enterprise is still an enterprise, even the nationalized one. USSR before perestroika is basically a country-wide corporation, and after perestroika it’s just a plain capitalist country, so i don’t see why you oppose ussr to capitalism, when saying that “capitalists came and forced ussr to crumble”. I know that soviet propagenda would claim otherwise, but capitalists were inside all along, they just had monopoly on everything, and were referred to as government.
Call me dumb or whatever for all i said, but i think that eversince people understood that money should circulate rather than be hoarded and kept, anything we do is inherently and unavoidably capitalistic, thus categorizing a subset of people as “capitalists” in opposition to other subset is inherently wrong.
I’m aware of how chaotic it was, but it was also capitalist with foreign plundering from western countries.
People love getting high on nostalgia when things aren’t looking up well in the present moment. Even many of those who were under fascism are nostalgic of it. That’s the point of nostalgia: only remembering the good parts of the past while pretending the bad never happened.
“sure, the people living there say that it was better under communism, but obviously they’re too stupid and foreign to know what they think. Only I, the enlightened westerner, can truly judge if things are better, which I will do based on vague vibes that I can’t identify the source of”
“People hated living under communism just ask them”
Actually you’ll find most people preferred living under communism
“They’re just blinded by nostalgia”
So you can’t just ask people about what it was like under communism?
“No you can, if you did you’d find they all hated it”
“I like to say I love communism without under duress.”
“I love communism not because I am a card-carrying party member.”
“The fact that more people fled from communist countries than coming in means those people are crazy.”
Least incoherent anti communist
I mean, sure, those who clawed their way out of the Berlin Wall, vault poled over electric fences in the DMZ, defected with a top secret Soviet plane as insurance to be allowed to stay in the West, and swam the Caribbean to desperately leave communist countries surely love communism.
That’s literally the opposite of what happened here, you dumbass
BrainInAWesternerBox larping as BrainInAnEasternerBox.
Most intellectual anti communist
That doesn’t explain the rise of communist party membership, nor can you wash away the fact that quality of life metrics were higher in the soviet union for the most part than they are today in post-soviet countries.
The metrics probably doesn’t include those who were in gulags and died of famines.
The rise in communist party membership you speak of maybe increased by 100%, when two new members joined an already two member communist party.
Wake me up when communist slogans are getting viral on Tiktok and Instagram, and if communists are getting elected in huge numbers on national level across the world.
Yes they do, you confidently incorrect, arrogant moron.
They do. For starters, famine was ended after the 1930s (outside of World War II), and prison death rates weren’t astronomically high nor were prison populations particularly high either.
As for increase in communist party membership, over four years, more than 63,000 people have become CPRF members, with most of the new recruits being young people under 30 and “people of prime working age.”.
“We are now seeing not just nostalgia for the past, but a conscious choice by millions of citizens in favor of the socialist path of development,”
We restored all ties with the Communist Parties of China, Vietnam, the DPRK, with India, with the Arab countries, with Latin America, with Cuba, with Venezuela, with Nicaragua.
The expansion and astronomical growth of grassroot movements like the Inmortal Regiment. This movement grew so large that plenty of countries around the world organized a similar march. It started small until it grew in a international movement.
There are other examples, but it’s clearly on the rise.
Have you tried reading the primary sources for that article? It implies that the people who think their country is worse off since the fall of the USSR want a return to the USSR. However, the questions that the article doesn’t discuss has a majority of people saying that they value the institutions of democracy very highly, which doesn’t suggest that that’s the case.
You’re an idiot
The USSR was democratic, so it isn’t in contradiction. I’d prefer more surveys to be taken that directly ask questions on preference for socialism vs capitalism, ie a return to the soviet system directly rather than simply asking if they are better or worse off. What we do know is that in countries like Russia and Belarus, there is a strong resurgance in soviet pride and communist party registration.
Again, I can only suggest reading the primary data, rather than relying on openly biased reporting. One of the key democratic principles which is so highly valued is “honest multiparty elections”.
I do read the primary data, and it’s also true that in many formerly socialist countries there’s surging sympathies for socialism and surging communist party membership.
I mean, you clearly didn’t read the primary data in this case, because if you had you wouldn’t have believed it to support the idea that the people surveyed wanted to return to the soviet era.
I did, and I believe it’s a strong indicator of wishing to return to socialism, especially when combined with other metrics like huge increases in communist party membership and soviet pride.
Not the biggest fan of the USSR - but compared to the capitalism that followed, yeah, they were
no wonder, considering how exactly that capitalism looked like, and how “well” people where with handling their finances.
Collapse of the USSR in terms of how destructive it was is comparable to the one of Roman Empire. It was litaral anarchy in the 90s.
Lots of people lost all their money they hoarded in a single moment, simply because just keeping the money hidden in a safe place was considered prime financial safety. And then lots of people lost their money again as they had no idea how to handle their finances properly, and people like Mavrodi emerged with their financial pyramid schemes, promising huge profits for all the investors.
tbf, USSR did great, especially considering that basically whole world pressured and opposed it in many ways. It still managed not only to persist, but also to help other countries. But comparing its economics to even all the combined economics of all the countries that were a part of it at the time is not fair, as USSR had in total more than 70 years to develop, and was occupying vast expances of land that had big cities, lots of fertile soil and just as much of any other resource. If you want to make a more fair comparison, you should compare it to EU.
Compared to other capitalist countries it was worse during Soviet times too. Average US life expectancy at the USSRs peak in 1986 was approx. 75 years old, whereas in the USSR the average is 5 years less… Quite substantial.
“A previously feudal society didn’t fully catch up to the biggest capitalist superpower! That means communism doesn’t work!”
Not what I said.
Also, where the Soviet Union fairly quickly seemed to plateau off with their life expectancy, the PRC managed to much more continuously trend upwards. Not necessarily faster than the SU at first (which makes sense), but they did manage to keep the momentum whereas the SU did not.
Your daily reminder that western liberals don’t think non western countries are real.
Japan’s life expectancy was even higher than most of those in the west.
Sure, plenty of developing capitalist nations had barely caught up at that point (e.g. South Korea). But they did manage to keep a positive trend going, whereas the SU had levelled off and wasn’t improving anymore.
That the only developing countries you can think of are Japan and SK very much demonstrates my point.
You said “non-western”. I named two. If you want to shift goalposts further that’s fine but don’t act like you’re being all smart or anything.
Even for other developing countries the overall trend is clear: continuous rise in life expectancy, leveling off as it gets closer to 80. The SU plateaud just below 70 and remained there until its fall (after which it rose again). The vast majority of developing nations do not show this pattern of levelling off early.
Take Iran, or the Philippines, or even Vietnam (bar the civil war). All of them didn’t level off like the Soviets did. Same thing in other socialist countries like Cuba and the PRC.
It indicates a fairly severe mismanagement that the Soviet Union is one of the very, very few countries that managed to keep their life expectancy at 67-68 for over 20 years, when other countries kept rising and a good number had already surpassed them. Only after the year 2000 did they manage a sustained growth in life expectancy, rising to 73 after dropping to 64 (likely levelling off a little now due to the war in Ukraine).
The argument was that under the Soviet Union life was better. That may have been true when compared directly to the very tumultuous fall that directly followed. But the reality is that growth of life expectancy had completely stagnated in Soviet Union (it was even declining very slightly). It only started rising again after Russia had mostly stabilised post-fall, and is now higher than it’s ever been.
Imagine trying to paint “correctly pointing out that Japan and SK are not remotely representative of the developing world in general” as “moving the goal post”. My god, it is so obvious you people just parrot these phrases after seeing them on Reddit and thinking that they’re magic incantations that make you “win” an argument.
That’s not how you phrased your comment. Try being clearer in your phrasing.
Also try responding to the rest of the contents of my reply instead of deflecting by saying “reddit dumb” and thinking that’s winning an argument. I very clearly demonstrated that a wide variety of developing nations did not show the same stagnation in life expectancy that the SU did.