The Soviet Union was a socialist economy, where the working classes were dramatically uplifted and in control of production, distribution, and the state. It wasn’t simply “disguised” as socialist, such a reading requires believing the working classes in eastern Europe to have been too stupid to comprehend their own oppression. The actual truth of the matter is that the working classes became highly educated, with literacy rates going from 20-30% to 99.9%, and free education to the highest levels. For what purpose would an alleged “autocracy” mass educate the working classes, rather than keep them under-educated and docile?
I don’t trust the statistics of a state that let millions inhabitants starve to death.
How exactly was the normal worker in control of production? Wasn’t it more like production was in the hand of the state, which in fact was very hierarchical?
I don’t trust the statistics of a state that let millions inhabitants starve to death.
They didn’t “let” millions of inhabitants starve to death, they did everything they could to alleviate it. Russia was notorious for frequent famine and starvation prior to collectivization of agriculture, and ended famine once and for all once it had. That’s a major contributor to the doubling of life expectancies in Russia:
Moreover, contemporary historians rely on statistics provided by the soviets, fact-check them, and find them to be very reliable.
How exactly was the normal worker in control of production? Wasn’t it more like production was in the hand of the state, which in fact was very hierarchical?
As I explained earlier, and will copy again, the state was run by the working classes. Socialism is not the absence of hierarchy, you’re thinking of anarchism. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action (as I’ll show at the end). Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Several elections which I attended will show concretely how soviet democracy functions. Four election meetings were held simultaneously in different hamlets of Gulin village, which had no assembly hall big enough for all. One of these meetings threw out the Party candidate, Borisov, because they felt that he neglected their instructions; they elected a non-Party woman who had displayed energy in improving the village and were praised by the election commissioner—himself a Party member—for having discovered good government timber which the Party had neglected. The central meeting in Gulin expected 235 voters; 227 appeared and were duly checked off by name at the door. There ensued personal discussion of every one of nine candidates, of whom seven were chosen. Mihailov “did good work on the roads.” The most enthusiasm developed over Menshina, a woman who “does everything assigned her energetically; checks farm property, tests seeds, collects state loans.” Dr. Sharkova, head of the Mothers’ Consultation, was pushed by the women: “We need a sanitary expert to clean up our village.” The incoming soviet was instructed to “increase harvest yield within two years to thirty bushels per acre, to organize a stud farm, get electricity and radio for every home, organize adult education courses, football and skiing teams, and satisfy a score of other needs.
Anna Louise Strong
All in all, the version of the Soviet Union that exists in your head is a work of fiction.
No? Britain’s colonialism resulted in vast amounts of surplus extraction and millions upon millions of deaths. The Baltics were treated unfairly in that they were used to showcase the effectiveness of socialism, and recieved a great deal of support.
The economic landscape of the Baltic states underwent a dramatic transformation under Soviet rule, particularly through rapid industrialization. Lithuania, for instance, surpassed its pre-war industrial output by 90% just two years after reaching pre-war figures in 1948, bolstered by a non-repayable Soviet subsidy of 200 million rubles for reconstruction. Latvia witnessed the construction of 20 industrial enterprises within two decades of 1940, a figure exceeding the entire Baltic region’s industrial growth in the year preceding being absorbed into USSR. Estonia’s gross industrial output saw an astonishing 55-fold increase, accompanied by a 30-fold surge in capital investment.
Infrastructure development was another important aspect of Soviet investment in the Baltics. Strategically important seaports were developed, which continue to serve as key hubs for export and import trade today, further enhanced by the connection of oil pipelines in the 1970s and 1980s. The region boasted the highest quality roads in the USSR, with Lithuania benefiting from a 300-kilometer expressway considered the best in the Union, featuring modern overpasses and interchanges. Energy infrastructure saw significant expansion with the construction of major hydroelectric power plants (Pļaviņas, Kegums, Riga on the Daugava, Kaunas on the Nemunas) and thermal power plants (Baltic TPP, Estonian TPP, Lithuanian TPP). The laying of gas pipelines from other Soviet republics ensured a stable supply of natural gas, further underpinning industrial and domestic energy needs. The port of Klaipėda in Soviet Lithuania grew into one of Europe’s largest fishing ports, and the Baltija shipyard, a Soviet-era construction, remains a vital employer today. These extensive infrastructure projects laid a robust foundation for continued economic activity and connectivity.
The tangible benefits of this focused development translated directly into higher living standards for the Baltic populations. Per capita consumption figures clearly illustrate this advantage: Estonia stood at 151% of the all-Union level, Latvia at 137%, and Lithuania at 127%. The massive capital investment in agriculture, particularly the six billion rubles injected into Estonian agriculture, led to a doubling of grain yields and harvests compared to 1939, improving food security and contributing to a better quality of life.
With the abandonment of central planning and the subsequent introduction of privatization under the capitalist regime following the dissolution of the USSR, many of these once-flourishing enterprises faced economic devastation, leading to widespread job losses and a severe decline in industrial output. This abrupt shift to market forces proved particularly harmful for the working majority, as previously guaranteed jobs gave way to mass unemployment, and the social safety nets of the Soviet system disintegrated, leaving many struggling to adapt to the new economic realities.
Colonialism also requires extraction of surplus, and if you read my edited comment you can see that the opposite was the case. There was real frustration in the Baltics specifically, but ultimately the socialist system was uplifting and democratic, while British colonialism was the opposite.
So forced collectivization and requisitioning of land, goods and production facilities isn’t extraction? Political repression, censorship and demographic engineering are democratic? I’m not against communism, I’m against the Soviet union.
The Soviet union was a donut empire in service to Russia. It was an autocracy disguised as communist.
The Soviet Union was a socialist economy, where the working classes were dramatically uplifted and in control of production, distribution, and the state. It wasn’t simply “disguised” as socialist, such a reading requires believing the working classes in eastern Europe to have been too stupid to comprehend their own oppression. The actual truth of the matter is that the working classes became highly educated, with literacy rates going from 20-30% to 99.9%, and free education to the highest levels. For what purpose would an alleged “autocracy” mass educate the working classes, rather than keep them under-educated and docile?
I don’t trust the statistics of a state that let millions inhabitants starve to death.
How exactly was the normal worker in control of production? Wasn’t it more like production was in the hand of the state, which in fact was very hierarchical?
They didn’t “let” millions of inhabitants starve to death, they did everything they could to alleviate it. Russia was notorious for frequent famine and starvation prior to collectivization of agriculture, and ended famine once and for all once it had. That’s a major contributor to the doubling of life expectancies in Russia:
Moreover, contemporary historians rely on statistics provided by the soviets, fact-check them, and find them to be very reliable.
As I explained earlier, and will copy again, the state was run by the working classes. Socialism is not the absence of hierarchy, you’re thinking of anarchism. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action (as I’ll show at the end). Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
All in all, the version of the Soviet Union that exists in your head is a work of fiction.
Literacy rates in the baltics were already at 91.1-91.6% before being invaded by the Russians disguising as communists.
Not evenly so across the whole of eastern Europe, and moreover socialism dramatically uplifted the baltics as well.
And Britain dramatically uplifted India. Same shit. Colonialism branded as communism.
No? Britain’s colonialism resulted in vast amounts of surplus extraction and millions upon millions of deaths. The Baltics were treated unfairly in that they were used to showcase the effectiveness of socialism, and recieved a great deal of support.
Per this effortpost by @yogthos@lemmy.ml , with sources:
Considerable increases in industrial production https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states/Soviet-occupation, https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states/Soviet-republics
I’m not disagreeing with your point, but colonialism doesn’t require millions of deaths. It requires external rule without consent of the people
Colonialism also requires extraction of surplus, and if you read my edited comment you can see that the opposite was the case. There was real frustration in the Baltics specifically, but ultimately the socialist system was uplifting and democratic, while British colonialism was the opposite.
So forced collectivization and requisitioning of land, goods and production facilities isn’t extraction? Political repression, censorship and demographic engineering are democratic? I’m not against communism, I’m against the Soviet union.