ITT: we post stupid memes that dumb westerners believe
"Russians are much better off after the USSR fell"
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Poll-Most-Russians-Prefer-Return-of-Soviet-Union-and-Socialism-20160420-0051.html
>if stalin had computers and better equations communism would have worked
>>1037562
>capitalism is working
Russia is empirically worse off, and yet people still act as if capitalism is a good thing.
>>1037566
>Russia is empirically worse off, and yet people still act as if capitalism is a good thing.
literally who is saying this
the mainstream belief is capitalism is the least evil
>>1037569
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Russian_male_life_expectancy.jpg
>inb4 uniquely russian problem
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/04/differential-mortality-retirement-benefits-bosworth/differential_mortality_retirement_benefits_bosworth_version_2.pdf
>capitalism
>good
Also, over 50% of Russians are saying it. Read the OP link.
>>1037580
>he thinks that capitalism always means completely unregulated capitalism with no benefits whatsoever
>he doesn't even realize that even social democracy is technically still capitalism
>he thinks that the fact that Russian-style capitalism isn't working means that capitalism is bad
>he thinks that a return to the Soviet Union would be good
>he thinks that a poll proves his point
BWAHAHAHAHA
Nyet
t. Actually lived in the glorious workers paradise
>>1037623
>thinks that the study he linked disproves capitalism
>still thinks that capitalism always means completely unregulated capitalism with no benefits whatsoever
>still doesn't even realize that even social democracy is technically still capitalism
>dismisses someone who actually lived under the system you're advocating cuz tips fedora lol holds up spork
>is a filthy gommie
>>1037641
Agreeing with his narrative would require dismissing the narrative of the other Russians who disagree with him.
Not saying I like the USSR terribly (since I'm an outright Tsarist), but I definitely would prefer some aspects of it to the way Russia is now, and see a lot within it that is worth defending.
>it's an r/fullcommunism thread
>>1037657
>Agreeing with his narrative would require dismissing the narrative of the other Russians who disagree with him.
There's just as much of a problem with using his opinions of Soviet-style communism as evidence that it's bad as there is of using someone else's opinions of Soviet-style communism as evidence that it's good.
>Not saying I like the USSR terribly (since I'm an outright Tsarist), but I definitely would prefer some aspects of it to the way Russia is now
The problem I had was that you used the way that Russia is now as evidence that capitalism is bad. I came off a bit snarky cause it's late, but I think the point still stands. There's a lot of different kinds of capitalism, man. There's the conservative version of it, the social version of it, the American 'libertarian' version of it, the classical liberal version of it, so on and so forth. All these employ different amounts/kinds of regulation within capitalism and they all work to different extents. Judging capitalism in general because of the way Russia does it isn't really fair or substantive.
>>1037680
Oh, I'm not OP, and I agree that his argument is shit. When I defend the USSR, I try to use statistics. While I do find it interesting most Russians preferred the Soviet Union, it also needs to be stressed that Russian politics is very different from Western politics. In Russia, the liberals want to shaft everyone and the conservatives want free healthcare.
>>1037566
and the most powerful country on the planet is capitalist yet people still think capitalism is bad
>>1037676
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDoIilJ-_Z0
>>1037657
this
>>1037788
Holy shit, is this satire?
>>1037862
Nope, it's what Stefan actually believes.
>>1037862
Nope, that's what ancaps believe.
They literally believe governments "spray bullets" at civilians to fund pocket protectors
They are literally this delusional.
>>1037566
Working better than muh authoritarianism.
>>1037769
> and the most powerful guy in the class is a bully yet people still think bullying is bad
>>1037970
>muh false equivalence
>mug zero sum game
>muh doesn't have anything to do with anything
>muh conflict theory
>mug meming with reckless abandon
How do the Pole, Hungarian, Romanians, Germans, etc feel, though? I doubt many of them want to go back to living under communism.
Russia is just a shithole, with or without communism.
>>1037994
it destroyed Poland forever on more levels than it's comfortable to speak of
economically, territorially, culturally, mentally...
>a bunch of Russian teenagers who never lived under Communism and young adults who were children during it's fall wish the country was communist again
>the country is so shitty because of the collapse created by communism and the fact an oligarchy immediately formed out of the resulting power struggle which never let actual capitalism form
Sure, let em be Communist again. We'll see if they're still singing the same tune in 20 years. I knew two Ukranians who lived under Communism, they're both dead now, cancer and old age respectively. They were pretty clear about how bad it was.
>>1038298
Stop shitposting.
It's the other way round: support of Communism is higher in older groups.
>>1038005
Communism or the exit from Communism?
>>1038315
Yeah nothing like old geezers with their rosy eyed nostalgia goggles and conventiently lacking memory to tell us how good it used to be.
>>1038327
> they are too young! they never properly lived in USSR!
> they are too old! they forgot how it was in USSR!
>>1038331
>rageface
>>/9gag/
But yeah more or less.
I don't trust young people and I don't trust the elderly. 19 year olds and 69 year olds are what's fucking the US and Europe so hard. I'd bet my left but the same is true for Russia.
>>1038322
The exit.
>>1038356
Fuck off.
You have an excuse for any age category. There is only one person on the whole planet who PROPERLY judge - and that's you.
>>1038368
Man your English is terrible, I have no idea what you meant by this.
>>1037994
it was bad and it got worse after
>>1038435
Are you describing Russia in general or just the Communist parts?
>>1037560
During the period of the oligarchs?
>>1038442
not russian
>>1038413
He said that you'll have an excuse for any group which disagrees with you.
Basically you'll ad hominem your way until only your opinion is left.
>Too old.
>Too young.
>Marxist.
>Feminist.
>Muslim.
>Jew.
>Woman.
etc.
>it's a communist claim the USSR was socialist when it's convenient but deny when it is not episode
>>1037566
Russia was really bad in the 90's but I don't think they were really worse off a few years ago before the sanctions started fucking with the economy.
>>1037607
This desu. Russian uncompetitive capitalism is dreadful. You need free competition not oligarchs
>>1039109
tell me how western magnets and corporation any better than oligarchs?
its literally the same thing, russia simply dont produce enough "value" (as long as you consider value if it sells) to have enough left for the population
>>1037994
IT was a disaster
>>1038298
> I knew two Ukranians who lived under Communism, they're both dead now, cancer and old age respectively.
>tells us how each one died
>doesn't differentiate either
?
>>1039075
Nah. Russia's economy never truly recovered. Even before the sanctions, the best it could do was to surpass RSFSR (Soviet Russia) in a very few areas.
I.e. despite oil prices going through the roof, Russia economy was basically worse than 20 years ago. Moreover, economy showed signs of stagnation in 2013 (before the whole Crimea mess). So it's not all sanctions.
It's just USSR was kinda long ago and people are comparing modern Russia to the 90s, not USSR.
>>1039142
>>muh true capitalism has never been tried
it works better than communism in most places that aren't Russia even when it isn't "real" capitalism
>>1037560
Life in the USSR was actually better for everyone who wasn't in an upper income bracket, if you consider the fact that people wouldn't care about having consumer goods like in the West if they were unaware about them.
It still wouldn't have lasted. Capitalism always needs to happen before Communism. The current development in Russia based off capitalism is a requirement to continue competing with the rest of the world.
>>1037769
>>1039142
It gets better. There are lunatics actually claiming that it is still Communism, because there are former members of the Party (20 million people by 1989) in government.
The only good thing is that most of those lunatics live in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (though it is somewhat justified in the latter case) and speak only Russian/Ukrainian.
>>1039163
Like Ukraine? Or all those *stans? And don't get me started on Iran and other states "blessed by democracy and capitalism" via forceful intervention of the West.
>>1039163
depends on how you define ""better""
>>1039163
99% of the world is capitalist
only a portion of it is considered developed
>>1039164
> Capitalism always needs to happen before Communism
USSR was Socialist, not Communist.
Lenin literally stated that the plan is to build Communism via "State Capitalism" (i.e. Socialism).
>>1039185
I never said it was communist. The USSR's command economy wasn't sufficient to eventually implement communism either.
>>1037623
>tips
>the guy actually lived in communist Russia and is calling you a retard
hey guess what
communism fucking sucks
>>1039195
>hey lets ignore all statistical or otherwise because ONE RETARD who we can't confirm anything about DISAGREED
>>1039208
Ok anon, why don't you go live in a communist country then? Tell us how great it is while you are there.
Stupid fucking underage.
>>1039226
you just answered your own question, it's fucking Reddit, you can't be someone who studies or practices history for a living and then defend communism, it's fucking retarded. I'm convinced people who are "communists" are either underage or not even old enough to drink in the US.
>>1039194
> The USSR's command economy wasn't sufficient to eventually implement communism either.
That's twisting the facts.
It is the level of technological advancement that matters, not type of economy. And I'm not persuaded that Soviet economy was incapavle of technological advancement.
>>1039221
Hey, not that anon, but I'd go. Except there isn't any. Even Belarus went capitalist.
>>1039226
I researched USSR and Marxism.
>>1039226
I wouldn't even say unironic, they all act like they're straight off one of the meme boards like r/fullcommunism
>>1039208
What statistical evidence?
And a poll? Really now? 42% of Americans believe in the literal creation story taught in the Bible.
Trusting public opinion to dictate public policy is nothing but an asinine belief; especially because an opinion poll done on Russians conflates the feelings of lost Empire and world power with the economics.
>>1039245
Is life expectancy also fake?
>>1039238
>I researched USSR and Marxism
>I still want communism
you're not that bright, are you?
>>1039259
> ad hominem
Yeah. Ignorance is bliss. Only dumb people doubt authorities.
>telesur as a source
Venezuelan here, KEK.
Telesur is an unabashed propaganda network set up by Chavez. I've seen some real jewels on there, like a "documentary" about how the Korean War started when evil South Korean puppet imperialists invaded the peaceful worker's state of North Korea unexpectedly.
>>1039238
>t is the level of technological advancement that matters, not type of economy. And I'm not persuaded that Soviet economy was incapable of technological advancement.
There isn't enough incentive for technological advancement on the scale it's seen in the USSR due to the lack of economic benefit you would get from investing resources in it. Furthermore, the thing about technological advancement is that you can't just say "we want this" and let it happen. A lot of technological advancement comes unexpectedly from developments, and as such technological advancement would require technology being developed in a very large variety of industries and fields. The USSR would not be able to achieve this variety with a command economy, that's why their military technology was so great while everything else was years behind.
>>1039269
>communism is doubting authority
my fucking sides
>>1037612
Aren't you a snowflake.
https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-most-russians-regret-ussr-has/
>>1039282
>rt
now this is a proofs I can get behind
>>1039282
>RT
>no link to the poll itself
>lower percentage want the USSR than in 2000
top kek
>>1039275
> Furthermore, the thing about technological advancement is that you can't just say "we want this" and let it happen.
Yes. You actually can. What economical benefit did space industry provide? None. Somebody simply said "we want this" and things happened.
And you can't pretend that Soviets had some kind of unfair advantage over USA in this aspect, like stopping all other development to improve only space industry.
> A lot of technological advancement comes unexpectedly from developments
Myth. Fundamental technological breakthroughs require immense investements. You can't unexpectedly build thermonuclear reactor that works.
Moreover, you don't seem to understand, that modern economy (even "capitalist" economy) is no longer free market. There are monopolies and huge corporations all over. The only difference between them and "command economy" of USSR is that profits go to select few, not get distributed among the population.
> everything else was years behind.
Nope. Quite a lot of stuff was cutting edge. As for electronics - even USA fell behind Japan in 80s.
>>1039252
>life expectancy
Okay. Let me explain as to why this is stupid and not be too mean about it, because you sound kinda young and uninformed.
The first thing you have to acknowledge is that these questions are not meant to be answered on 4chan, or in internet arguments.
Why? Because you're comparing apples and oranges. Anybody that has taken one statistic from one country, compared it with another, and said its because of X, is in all likelihood wrong.
Let me explain.
When you're doing any comparison, you need to have populations of identical characteristics in order to ascertain any sort of causality.
An example would be an experiment where you examine the effects of fertilizer on apples. You take a statistically significant sample of apple trees, randomized them, assign a control and an experimental group, and pour fertilizer on your experimental group, measure their output of apples, do statistical analysis to determine if there's a different in means, and boom, you're done.
However, if you take your control group, and put them over a hill where the soil retains less moisture, you are introducing the effects of another variable into your experiment. Or worse, your control group could be orange trees, which have entirely different outputs of fruit.
Now back to your point. The Brookings paper earlier highlighted this by controlling for SES (socio economic status). However, SES is not the only set of variables influencing life expectancy. Life expectancy is influenced by things such as smoking habits, number of miles driver per capita, diet, availability of firearms, population density, and even the weather.
This is why its very difficult to ascertain causation in the social sciences. Especially when the paper didn't even have the variable "capitalism" in it.
>>1039317
>Yes. You actually can. What economical benefit did space industry provide? None. Somebody simply said "we want this" and things happened.
Some industries, obviously. I openly stated it was the case with military technology.
>Myth. Fundamental technological breakthroughs require immense investements. You can't unexpectedly build thermonuclear reactor that works.
Technological breakthroughs that require massive investment aren't the only kind of technology. The massive amount of different technologies made possible through the Internet for example, would not have been possible just by massively investing in a specified "Internet Technology" program.
>Moreover, you don't seem to understand, that modern economy (even "capitalist" economy) is no longer free market. There are monopolies and huge corporations all over. The only difference between them and "command economy" of USSR is that profits go to select few, not get distributed among the population.
Yes monopolies and corporations stagnate progress, although you're wrong to assume there is a monopoly in every single industry to exist, as made evident by the continuing success of many new start-ups.
>Nope. Quite a lot of stuff was cutting edge.
Apart from energy and military, what was cutting edge?
>As for electronics - even USA fell behind Japan in 80s.
Which is also a capitalist society
>>1039327
> because you sound kinda young and uninformed.
You are comparing Russia under Soviet rule to Russia under neocon rule.
You are stating, that population en masse is dumb: they don't accept inherent glory of Capitalism, despite all the government brainwashing and anti-Soviet propaganda.
Then you try to say "it's all too complicated for you" and copypaste some bullshit that "numbers don't matter", expecting everyone to believe that your (completely unsubstantiated) opinion is correct, instead of presenting some evidence that supports it.
Did I miss anything?
>>1039347
>numbers that support me are objective and shouldn't be questioned
>numbers that disagree with me are lies
top cyka
>>1039347
thanks for ousting yourself as young and uninformed
Most Russians who are voting pro-USSR don't give a shit about the socialist economy or Marxism. They care about clay and superpower status. In most people's minds, communism = tanks, planes and lots of red color on the world map. Not worker control of the workplace or whatever.
Also saying that Russians were better off materially under the USSR than now is downright retarded. I don't have to stand in queue for several hours to buy something other than bread and vodka, for once.
t.Russian
>>1039347
>You are comparing Russia under Soviet rule to Russia under neocon rule.
I was doing no such thing.
Unfortunately there's no IDs on this board.
>You are stating, that population en masse is dumb
Yes. As a rule of thumb, public opinion isn't the best way to do public policy. Public policy has to be evidence based in order to have any sort of merit.
> instead of presenting some evidence that supports it.
This is literally epistemology and experimental design 101. But your very same paper supports my points. Why did they control for SES using multiple linear regression if my points have no merits?Just compare the raw numbers across completely different populations and exclaim that X did it!
>>1039332
> Which is also a capitalist society
Most of the world was capitalist, you dumbfuck.
Why do you demand one semi-developed socialist state to beat all developed capitalist states in all areas?
>>1039371
Based Russian bro
>>1039359
>numbers that disagree with me
Weren't even posted. And the anon here pretends that he doesn't need to post anything.
Try to keep up.
>>1039372
> your very same paper
What paper are you talking about?
>>1039387
You're acting like the USSR was cut off from the rest of the world. You really didn't get the first/second highest GDP from completely isolating yourself. The USSR was fully involved in the world economy and had access to the developments from capitalist societies. Doesn't change the fact they could not keep up in their own developments due to the reasons I stated.
>"Russians are much better off after the USSR fell"
Tell me how Russians had great live when drunkard Yeltsin had power over them?
>>1037566
>Russia is empirically worse off, and yet people still act as if capitalism is a good thing.
Food lines?
Blackouts?
A large wall of concrete, steel, and guns separating Russia from Europe?
Secret police whisking people away to gulags?
Is there more or less of this now?
>>1039403
Oh my mistake. Again, no IDs.
It was this paper cited in the thread.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/04/differential-mortality-retirement-benefits-bosworth/differential_mortality_retirement_benefits_bosworth_version_2.pdf
See the logistic regression estimates?
Also. Causation is based on consensus, and not necessarily on one paper. However, you would be hard pressed to find a paper about life expectancy that does not control for variables.
>>1039371
> In most people's minds, communism = tanks, planes and lots of red color on the world map. Not worker control of the workplace or whatever.
Actually, no.
But you can't prove your point, and you expect nobody can prove otherwise (not in a single post, at least). Is that correct?
>>1039406
> The USSR was fully involved in the world economy and had access to the developments from capitalist societies.
Are you high? Or is this bait?
Because that's an outright lie.
>>1039449
state access to technologies =/= state preventing importation of consumer goods
>>1039500
idiot
>>1039413
> Food lines?
> Blackouts?
Compared to 30 years ago? More.
Well, I didn't have blackouts in USSR and I don't have now, but rural regions are much worse when it comes to electricity.
> Secret police whisking people away
Now it's worse.
>>1039507
how am I an idiot? The government can get shit the people can't
don't act retarded you underage moron
>>1039487
> state access to technologies
West was very keen on limiting Soviets access to Western technologies. Export of senstive technologies (at some point even wire) to USSR was forbidden.
Is this really news to people here?
>>1039509
>this is what commies actually believe
>>1039426
Well, I can approximate the mental gymnastics you're going to use to prove that Russians love Marx rather than simply being nationalist revanchists and that KPRF is a communist party, so nah, you don't have to.
>>1039527
And were citizen run business the ones developing technology? No everything was fucking state run so it's irrelevant
>>1039529
And what about them stagnating in almost everything that wasn't a sensitive technology? As in shit that you could literally fucking see just by visiting their countries. It really wasn't difficult for the USSR to gain access to technologies that would have been impossible to hide from the 1st/2nd most powerful country in the world.
>>1037560
> dumb westerners
Anon, Russia is part of the West. They are also Westerners.
>>1039552
> And what about them stagnating in almost everything that wasn't a sensitive technology?
Like chewing gum? Or carbonated drinks?
>>1039509
>More
You can take Proofs, but you can also give. I haven't had a serious blackout for 15 years now. The idea of food lines is simply laughable.
>>1039570
Or transportation, computers, etc.
We both know you're just arguing now for the sake of it
>>1039572
> The idea of food lines is simply laughable.
Have you ever been to supermarket during rush hour?
> I haven't had a serious blackout for 15 years now
And your point was?
>>1039599
>Have you ever been to supermarket during rush hour?
These two things are not equal at all and you fucking know it.
>>1039572
Are you a Pole by any chance? Poland was allowed to join the West. The rest were to be resource colonies.
>>1039599
>Have you ever been to supermarket during rush hour?
and in America they are lynching negros
>>1039604
Nope, Russian.
It's been 25 years now, no one remembers shit, these people just like to dream about some past Golden Age and pretend there was a time when everything was ok, like everyone does. For some reason no one remembers piss poor living conditions, inefficient wasteful economy, militarization of society and authoritarianism. I bet in 25 years everyone will be nostalgic about Putin era.
>All these graphs about how 90s was shit
Yeah, but it was a direct result of Soviet politics in 60-80s, when they sold oil for food and gave away that food for cheap so people would be content, instead of modernizing economy like China did. With oil prices going down in 80s the collapse was inevitable.
t. Actual Russian
>>1039593
> transportation
Bicycles?
> computers
Educate yourself.
These have possible military applications. Each purchase had to be approved. Many were denied outright. Some - even after the contract was signed.
>>1039603
> These two things are not equal at all and you fucking know it.
Yes, they are. There were less lines in USSR before Gorbachev than there are now.
>>1039645
Troll post
>>1039696
> Export/import statistics disagree.
It isn't, if you exclude Socialist Block, who had no choice.
>>1039836
> sold oil for food
> instead of modernizing economy
We are talking about this, no?
>>1039849
Well this is for "food" part.
>>1039910
And this one for "modernizing' part.
>>1039910
Irrelevant, since this doesn't show the share of food imports of USSR.
Since you are clearly incapable of finding actual numbers, but did attempt to do something beyond shitposting, here are some numbers for 1982.
Industrial imports (heavy machinery for factories, etc.) : 43.4%
Food and food-related imports : 18.8%
As you see - situation is quite different from what you've told.
>>1039927
GDP is iffy. It includes a lot of things, you know.
>>1039939
WAIT. That's socialist states only.
Total would be 34.4% and 23.7%.
Apologies.
Either way - my point stands: USSR was not importing food alone.
>>1039939
>>1039939
> 1982
> As you see - situation is quite different from what you've told.
No wonder, oil prices being so high. By the end of the decade USSR had to sell its gold and take international loans to pay for food imports too keep the food prices fixed. And the price for that loans wad deconstruction of the Socialist Block.
And ofc I wasn't literal, USSR imported and exported other stuff too. The problem was, it couldn't survive without grain imports and the only exporters big enough were US and Canada, and they were selling grain for USD only, and the only way to get these USD was to sell oil. By the middle-late 80s oil prices fell, food shortages started, resulting in social unrest, combining with external pressure to reform to get more loans, it resulted in eventual collapse. And 90s disaster was the direct result of this policy.
>>1039992
> No wonder, oil prices being so high. By the end of the decade USSR had to sell its gold and take international loans to pay for food imports too keep the food prices fixed. And the price for that loans wad deconstruction of the Socialist Block.
Nope.
For one, you are moving the goalposts. You said USSR did not have resources to modernize, because it was buying food for oil.
Grain imports in 1982 - 7.5%
Oil exports in 1982 - about 50%
Price of oil is insufficient to doom USSR.
Now, if you want, we can take the outlier. Do you want to check 1987? Or 1988? Grain (or all "food" - includes tobacco, btw) share will not change much.
>>1040039
Not him, but to clarify I'd say the reason the USSR collapsed was they had an oil based economy, weren't developing a decent private sector, and put about 30% of their GDP into the military.
>but muh 15%
Either Gorbachev is a liar or the Soviets were putting 30% of their GDP into the military.
>>1037560
>India and China have huge population growth rates
>Pajeets consume more resources than us because they have huge population
http://m.timesofindia.com/world/rest-of-world/Urban-Indias-fertility-rate-lower-than-Frances/articleshow/51836216.cms
>>1040039
> You said USSR did not have resources to modernize, because it was buying food for oil.
You forgot about my point about keeping food prices fixed for political reasons. Price of oil would be insufficient to doom USSR if only it had market economy and (ostensibly) democratic government, like modern Russia does. But planned economy wasn't able to adjust itself to fluctuations of oil prices while soviet economy became more and more dependent on selling oil. Meanwhile autocratic government meant that the ruling class had to support quality of life of the population of keep is satisfied and claim, so they were unwilling to raise prices (or introduce private sector and letting the prices off completely) until it was too late. So instead of just letting people became (reasonable) poorer, like it is happening right now in Russia, they delayed it as far as they could, keeping fixed prices, and that resulted in total collapse and catastrophe of 90s.
>>1040053
> put about 30% of their GDP into the military
This is pretty much on topic. As in "post stupid memes" topic.
> Either Gorbachev is a liar
Gorbachev is a confirmed filthy liar who wanted to rule USSR alone (as a president; not as part of High Council) and stopped at nothing to achieve it.
Also, it was not 15% (where did you even get this number?) but 5-7%.
>>1040152
Ahahaha you're a living meme you know that?
>>1040138
> You forgot about my point about keeping food prices fixed for political reasons
Those reasons are not political, you fucking sociopath.
If food and medicine prices are not regulated, people actually die. And this is BAD. As in ethically bad. Morally wrong thing. Nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, how does fixed food price even matter? You don't make much sense here, you know. USSR could buy grain, even if oil price was 0 (zero). It doesn't matter what happened to grain afterwards.
Raising internal prices could only allow to reduce internal bread consumption. I.e. imports of grain. That's it. But you already can afford grain improts, so it doesn't matter.
>>1040187
> If food and medicine prices are not regulated, people actually die
No, they just spend less on other stuff.
> It doesn't matter what happened to grain afterwards.
It does, USSR government sold the grain to the people, by rising the price to the real market one it would cover its loses by slightly decreasing quality of life. By the end of USSR the real prices of food stuff was much larger than the market ones, but the government kept subsidizing it with huge loses just to keep the people calm. In other words, in the last decade of USSR its population haven't earned the quality of life they had, they borrowed it from the next generation, who paid it all in 90s.
>>1040290
> No, they just spend less on other stuff.
Are you even serious?
> It does, USSR government sold the grain to the people, by rising the price to the real market one it would cover its loses by slightly decreasing quality of life.
As I've said: it doesn't matter what happens to grain afterwards.
If you can't afford supplying inner market with YOUR OWN luxury consumer goods - you simply produce less of those goods. You might raise prices on THOSE goods (not grain), if you do not want to have lines people standing. Or ration them.
But that's it. There is no need to raise bread prices.
What is so hard to understand?
>>1037560
>2016
>Still ignoring the correlation between economic freedom and IDH
>Voluntarily being a statecuck
>>1040330
> Are you even serious?
Yes? If you rise food prices people won't start starving, they just spend more on it.
> You might raise prices on THOSE goods (not grain), if you do not want to have lines people standing.
Yeah, they should have done it too, 5 years earlier the did. Even better, they should have get rid of fixed prices, let the inflation to fix everything.
> There is no need to raise bread prices.
Bread is the same commodity as others, there is no reason to keep prices low with subsidies unless there is a real danger of famine.
And my point still stands - the ruling classes spent oil profits to support unreasonably high quality of life of the population, resulting in inefficient spending and ineffective economy, which collapsed with oil prices because the ruling class was unwilling to use unpopular measures in a fear of social unrest until the very end.
>>1037560
Literally tumblr-tier post
The West fucked up with Russia, though. Russia's 90's were Germany's 20's.
>>1039269
>only dumb people doubt authority
holy shit that delusion
>>1040431
> Yes? If you rise food prices people won't start starving, they just spend more on it.
Are you aware of the meaning of the word "outlier" ? I.e. people are not all the same average Joes the statistic shows to us?
> Even better, they should have get rid of fixed prices, let the inflation to fix everything.
This has nothing to do with grain.
> Bread is the same commodity as others,
No, you fucking sociopath. Bread is not a luxury. It's a staple food.
>there is no reason to keep prices low with subsidies
Yes, there is. See above - it is not a luxury. You want to drain excess money - you raise prices of the luxury goods. Either way, the amount of cash in people's hands cannot crash your economy if this cash cannot be used to buy imported goods without control (which was the case in USSR).
> And my point still stands - the ruling classes spent oil profits to support unreasonably high quality of life of the population, resulting in inefficient spending and ineffective economy, which collapsed with oil prices because the ruling class was unwilling to use unpopular measures in a fear of social unrest until the very end.
And you point is? Because "social unrest" clearly did not cause fall of USSR. Even in 1991 majority was pro-Soviet.
Also, you should know: Gorbachev explicitly allowed to drain inner funds of the state enterprises to increase payments to the workers (and directors). This has increased the amount of money in peoples hands much more than your "excessive luxury" of pre-Gorbachev time.
I.e. "delayed inflation" didn't have much to do with oil. It was Perestroika that was responsible for this.
>>1040516
That was sarcasm, no?
>>1039226
>>1039234
>implying you have to be a communist to defend some of the USSR's policies and accomplishments
>>1039226
No, /his/ is just filled with "muh Marxism is the worst evil" delusional right wing conspiracists.
>>1040569
Are you implying that Marxism ISN'T the worst evil ever?
>any thread that isn't condemnatory of Marx and socialism
>"omfg leddit invasion *tips* *tips* *tips* nobody can hang here but us superior conservative gentlemen"
>>1040579
Yes, Marx is on your side, anon, even if you aren't.
>>1037569
No, the mainstream belief is that capitalism is perfect
>>1039142
>things nobody has ever claimed
>>1040537
> the amount of cash in people's hands cannot crash your economy if this cash cannot be used to buy imported goods without control
Interesting point, but food stuff was just this kind of process - USSR government was buying grain for USD and then selling it for rubles, so the people was indirectly buying imported goods for artificially low prices, and the government covered the difference with oil monies. It actually crushed the economy when there was not more oil money and no one was willing to tell people their money worth much less than they think.
> Because "social unrest" clearly did not cause fall of USSR.
Social unrest lead to nationalism in the republics by 89, their de facto independence in 90, and that lead to collapse of USSR in 91.
> Even in 1991 majority was pro-Soviet.
They where pro some new kind of Union, not the good ol' authoritarian USSR with socialist economy. They wanted USSR without Communist Party (just look at the elections at the time), and this is exactly that the party was afraid of in the 80s.
> I.e. "delayed inflation" didn't have much to do with oil. It was Perestroika that was responsible for this.
Now this is some conspiracy theory shit. Perestroika was (a misguided) attempt to save the already failing state and it failed mostly because there was nothing left to save by that time.
>>1040662
> Gaidar
> literally prevented foreign grain purchases, despite having more than enough money
> artificially created bread shortages in Russia by ordering state granaries to stockpile grain to sell it later to people for higher price
> muh communism
This is so much facepalm, I don't even know where to begin.
>>1040715
How does this make his analysis of the late USSR economics wrong though? He may have his own failures, but he knows the stuff and cites lots of sources.
>>1040662
> government covered the difference with oil monies
Oil - half of Soviet exports. Not 70%, or 80%, or 100%
Also, I've already pointed out - USSR had more than enough cash to spare for grain imports. Oil prices were irrelevant.
> It actually crushed the economy when there was not more oil money and no one was willing to tell people their money worth much less than they think.
How exactly does that even work?
> Social unrest lead to nationalism in the republics by 89, their de facto independence in 90, and that lead to collapse of USSR in 91.
No.
New capitalist elite was born (in 1988/89) among the Soviet bureaucrats (Party functionaries that got unrestricted access to stockpiles of Soviet resources due to Gorbachev's Perestroika), that had vested interest in taking down Marxism as state ideology for good. Marxism needed to be replaced with something - and that was Nationalism. That was the reason of nationalist propaganda, not some "social unrest".
Well, that and Glasnost.
> that lead to collapse of USSR in 91
How?
> They where pro some new kind of Union
Not really. Check the options: one - have USSR, the other - have no USSR.
Majority was pro USSR.
>>1040662
> They wanted USSR without Communist Party (just look at the elections at the time)
No. Look at the programs.
Gorbachev denied members of CPSU the right to present their own programs. Anyone suggesting ANY reforms whatsoever had to go as an independent candidate.
> Now this is some conspiracy theory shit.
This is elementary economics. You put more money in system - the inflation rises.
Each state enterprise had inner funds (in non-cash roubles; if you are familiar with the term). Those funds could only be used to modernise equipment. However, Gorbachev allowed directors of state enterprises to take those money and convert into cash roubles (i.e. consumer currency) and then give them to whoever they wanted.
This was a major influx of cash into the consumer economy. Additionally, Gorbachev introduced "quality control" that significantly reduced amount of consumer goods that were offered to the public.
This is literally textbook reasons of inflation: more money and less goods to buy. There is no conspiracy.
> Perestroika was (a misguided) attempt to save the already failing state and it failed mostly because there was nothing left to save by that time.
This is bullshit propaganda Gorbachev invented to force High Council to accept his demands to disband Presidium and give Gorbachev effective dictatorship (create post of President of USSR). This was also used later by Yeltsin, to justify his coup and shelling of Parliament.
I.e. the very same attempt to become dictator. Except Yeltsin succeeded, of course.
It's the same in Eastern Europe because older people grew up knowing the state would nurse you into a mediocre, low-paying job without you having to do anything at all and let you vegetate for 50 years. A lot of people who are now poor miss that safety net, not realizing what poison that is for a young person's development.
>>1040753
> How does this make his analysis of the late USSR economics wrong though?
How does being a liar and having a vested interest in twisting facts make his analysis wrong?
It doesn't. But it makes his analysis extremely suspect.
Any reasonable person would have to cross-reference everything before making any conclusions.
> He may have his own failures, but he knows the stuff and cites lots of sources.
Oh, please. I'd love to take his book and have a page-by-page investigation of his bullshit, except that would take too much time.
>>1040869
> what poison that is for a young person's development.
Of course. So much better not to get any education, while doing drugs and drinking alcohol.
Please, remove your rose-tinted glasses.
>>1040839
> Oil - half of Soviet exports
And this is actually huge.
> Also, I've already pointed out - USSR had more than enough cash to spare for grain imports. Oil prices were irrelevant.
So why USSR started to borrow like crazy in the late 80s if it had enough cash?
> That was the reason of nationalist propaganda, not some "social unrest".
Well I actually partly agree with you about new elites using nationalism for their personal agenda, to peoples to follow them there had to be some reason for discontent, and it was mostly economical.
> Well, that and Glasnost.
So Free Speech killed USSR?
> How?
By new national elites concentration more and more power in their hands.
> Check the options: one - have USSR, the other - have no USSR.
> Majority was pro USSR.
This is misleading, the actual question was "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?". This is nothing like the USSR. No one vote for the Communist Party or socialist economy, they vote for some kind of unified state with implicate understanding that this state would be democratic and capitalistic.
>>1040863
> Gorbachev allowed directors of state enterprises to take those money and convert into cash roubles
Well, as you say, they had to rise the prices accordingly.
> Gorbachev introduced "quality control" that significantly reduced amount of consumer goods that were offered to the public
So it's better to produce lots of shitty goods? No wonder no one wanted Soviet goods outside the Socialist Block.
> Gorbachev
> Yeltsin
> dictators
U w0t m8? They there incompetent and self-serving, for sure, but not dictators.
>>1040915
>don't get education
>work manual labor for X a month
>get university degree
>work white collar job for about 2.5 times X a month because we're a classless society and we can't have one person richer than the other
Give me a break anon. If a post-Communist state is a drug-infested shithole it's not capitalism's fault, it's not the Americans' fault, it's that country's fault. There have been numerous examples of countries being leveled with the ground and becoming a booming economy 30 years or less after that. Ask a Slovenian or a Czech if they'd like the regime back.
>>1040898
> How does being a liar and having a vested interest in twisting facts make his analysis wrong?
Everybody has a vested interest in twisting facts, you have to wait at least 100 years if you want impartial analysis.
>>1040930
> U w0t m8? They there incompetent and self-serving, for sure, but not dictators.
There has to be some limit to your ignorance.
Gorbachev dissolves Presidium (effectively the ruling body of USSR) and gets for himself all its power. Literally becoming the most powerful man in the history of USSR.
Yeltsin literally goes full Pinochet and orders army (soldiers and tanks) to take down unarmed protesters (hundreds if not thousands die) and the Parliament that begun impeachment procedure against him. The Parliament literally gets shelled by the tanks.
If Clinton ordered army tanks to turn Congress in the pile of rubble when it begun investigation of this Monica affair, what would you call him? Incompetent and self-serving?
>>1041064
> into the pile of rubble
>>1041064
> Literally becoming the most powerful man in the history of USSR.
Technically - maybe, but practically you can't be serious.
> unarmed protesters (hundreds if not thousands die) and the Parliament that begun impeachment procedure against him
Oy vey, the protesters were good boys, didnd du nuffing, just wanted to overthrow the government and to establish reactionary regime. But yeah, his actions were unconstitutional, but he did it for the greater good (and his personal power, ofc). And he wasn't a dictator, he nearly lost the election of 1996 and he didn't control the parliament. He was nowhere near Putin's control of the state, for example.
>>1039142
I never really said that capitalism has never been tried, tho. Nor did I refer to Russia as 'not real capitalism'. All I said is that there are different kinds of capitalism with varying degrees of regulation and competitiveness. I never even said that capitalism was the best thing ever. Your argument, on the other hand, has no substance beyond lol capitalism is evil and eben soviet russia is better take that u western propagandist capitalism BTFO *tips*
>>1041754
>implying
>never ending straw men
>Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist
No, Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who would collaborate with fascists and murder democratic socialists 100 years ago.
>>1037769
Wow imperialism makes countries rich and successful who knew what a victimless crime 10/10 economic success story of the millenium.
>it's a "4chan mistakes an ubernationalist, state capitalist country for communism" episode
>>1043176
>Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist or a fascist collaborator
No.
>>1037560
>multiculturalism
>>1043211
I was making reference to the German revolution when Rosa Luxemburg was assassinated by the Freikorps on the orders of the leader of the SPD.
>>1041147
> Oy vey, the protesters were good boys, didnd du nuffing, just wanted to overthrow the government and to .
NewsFlash: they were defending legitimate governmet and were protesting against unconstitunional actions of Yeltsin.
It was Yeltin who decided to overthrow government.
> establish reactionary regime
Kill yourself.
>>1043176
Democratic socialists actually would collaborate with fascists.
They did it 80 years ago.
>be Eastern European
>all these effete western NEETs trying to tell me about my country
This board really is cringe central
>>1039226
Reddit really isn't communist, you do realize?
>>1043176
>Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who would collaborate with fascists and murder democratic socialists 100 years ago.
Okay, this is a lot to ask but let's take a step into reality for a second.
Now that you're there, I'll concur with your main point that he isn't a democratic socialist; he's actually a social democrat. He calls himself a socialist because neither he nor the majority of the country he's running for knows what that term means. That doesn't mean he's literally the same as the SPD, it just means he's naive.
>>1043672
He's a Marxist pretending to be a social democrat. Admitting to be a Marxist would be a political suicide in the US.
>>1043678
You are beyond delusional.
>>1043663
>taking /pol/ seriously
>>1043698
>outspoken Marxist in his early years
>defending the Sandinistas
>getting his Vermont shithole twinned with a Soviet city and putting the Soviet flag in his office
>>1043678
>>>/r/the_donald
>>1039226
I'm a state socialist not a communist
>>1043678
>I ask someone to step into reality for a second
>someone else replies with crazy bullshit on the complete opposite side of the spectrum
>>1043710
>defending the Sandinistas
Whats wrong with that?
>>1043752
They were communists. Which makes sense seeing he's a communist himself.
>>1043755
yeah, it makes perfect sense and isn't at all bad, except you just don't like communists. you do realize that nobody gives a shit what you like, right?
>>1043768
Is there something that causes you to be this frustrated?
>>1043778
yes my daddy hit me :-----(
>>1043803
At least you weren't raised by a single mom.
>>1043204
>0
that is because communism is a big joke
>>1043711
Fuck off back to /leftypol/, you sjw faggot
>>1037562
The USSR actually did have some REALLY fucking weird computerisation funnily enough, I've been meaning to get a bit more in depth with it for a while.
>>1043678
>supported the F-35 project and conventional US docterine for foreign affairs
>marxist
If he actually campaigned more on his foreign affairs and military views he'd probably get a lot of typical republicans on side because he's the only conventional person around.
>still falling for the Communism/Capitalism meme
>>1044281
Do you mean "triple bit" thing (bits with 3 states, instead of 2 as is current standard) or System A network?
There also was OGAS, but it was never implemented.
>>1039406
isn't that the scientific discovery and technological innovation had a hard time to move in and out of the iron curtain??
>>1043656
I don't think reintroducing flags would help. There's a lot of dumb people in this board, unfortunately.
>>1039173
the fate of Ukraine is similar to the fate of all the ex-URSS countries, including baltic states.
They all believed that getting out of URSS-Russia will boost their economy.
But in reality, it destroyed all those countries. Not necessarily from the economic point of view (as some may object they have now a better GDP), but socially.
>>1045004
Technologically as well.
>>1037676
Not an argument.
>>1044281
Glushkov wanted a country-wide computer system in the 60s to run the economy. Money would be digitised as well. But it meant the CPSU would lose its influence so any idea that would improve the Soviet Union were shot down or crippled.
>>1045004
I know western commies live in an entirely different universe and I shouldn't bother, but still.
I'm from one of the Baltic states. Enlighten me, how are we destroyed. Hard mode: no ebin population decrease graphs.
>>1037560
>According to the latest poll conducted by the Levada Center
>Levada Center
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-levada-center-foreign-agent/24992729.html
So a foreign agency, who's founder was a lady who was involved with perestroika, misses the soviet union. Not like the results are manipulated or anything.
>>1045444
it was amazing and only good things about it are spoken amongst us in Riga. everyone had to work and those who wouldn't, they would be forced. they lived happily.
Funny thing is that Lithuania, like other Baltic countries, was the most richest country in the USSR.
>says "everything was better in USSR
>streets were safe at night
>everyone got an education
>everyone had a job
>everyone got healthcare
>says she misses USSR and everything's shit now
>>1045920
I'm the guy you responded to, I'm from Lithuania. I'm well aware of the "little America" stories and just how "well off" the Baltic States were . The best smelling shit in the toilet bowl that was USSR.
>streets were safe at night
And the grass was greener, and streets were cleaner... ;(. Fuck you. I live in Vilnius, the streets are safe unless you venture into the shittier outskirts of the city drunk and even then you need some bad luck. Other than that you are fine, I'm talking from experience. Also, if you think there was no crime in USSR, you're fucking delusional.
>everyone got an education
As opposed to now, you stupid vatnik fuck? Higher education is fucking free for practically everyone, except those too stupid and lazy not to completely fuck up in their school exams. Even more so, the admission to free vacancies in universities is so high, that for the last few years people have been complaining that the number of universities is too high and they are too easy to pass, and so this undermines the value of higher education diploma.
>everyone had a job
U huh, too bad majority of those jobs we're inefficient, pointless and produced nothing of value, except nice looking statistics. Also, newsflash dipshit: everyone, but the laziest welfare queens have jobs now too. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends and acquaintances who had problems finding a job, higher education or not.
>everyone got healthcare
And now they don't? Public healthcare is still here and functioning, again, talking from experience. You simply have a choice now, between public and private one.
>>1045920
Continuing:
>says she misses USSR and everything's shit now
Only two types of people miss USSR:
1) Old people, whom transition to capitalism fucked over due to inability to amass wealth in years prior to 1990, so now they're stuck with pensions, which are quite small in comparison to prices.
2) Middle-aged alcoholic bydlos, who miss times when they could sit on their asses all day, imitate "work", get drunk in their free time, pass out and repeat everything when they wake up.
Nowadays, if you have any fucking ambition, skill or talent, you do well for yourself, and these fucks can't take it.
Also, > amongst us in Riga
Fuck off, you are no Latvian. At the very best, you're some shitty russian diaspora, failing to integrate into a country that you've been living in for several decades.
>>1037566
Russia is state capitalist, just like mainland China. That's why it's such a miserable place. State capitalism is one step above socialism
>>1039142
Hong Kong you Mong
Reminder the Proletariat deserve to be enslaved and exploited, they are inferior beings and live to serve. Marxism is nothing more than a way for the proles to feel better about themselves, like Christianity. The Bourgeois will always rule, it is destiny.
>>1046185
Explain to me the mass exodus of Lithuanians into the British Isles?
PS: Labas irgi ish Lietuva.
>>1045265
> CPSU
Not CPSU (there were millions of members), but high-ranking bureaucrats.
>>1045472
> Not like the results are manipulated or anything.
Levada Center hates communists and Soviet Union. There is no way they will be artificially increasing pro-Soviet numbers.
>>1046193
> old
> middle-aged
You forgot delusional children. After all you must encompass all age categories.
> Fuck off, you are no Latvian. At the very best, you're some shitty russian diaspora, failing to integrate into a country that you've been living in for several decades.
Such butthurt from zirgagalva. Have fun emigrating to UK to clean toilets.
And - no, I'm not the anon you were responding to.
>>1037560
NOTHING CHANGED.
With Glasnost and Perestroika things where supposed to get better.
They never did, they never improved, Russia is still feeling the effects of the U.S.S.R. and WWII.
You wan't a better example.
Germany, as soon as the communists left Germany things instantly became better and Germany is even taking the lead in the E.U. Economy.
Why call yourself /his/ if you don't even know history?
>>1048637
There was a popular leaflet during USSR collapse stating that Ukraine had more population and resources than France but "was sucked dry by Russian imperialism and Soviet republics". In 20 years it will be like France or better.
20 years later, well...
>>1046885
>Levada Center hates communists and Soviet Union
>Need source that isn't from Levada center
>>1048637
> Germany, as soon as the communists left Germany things instantly became better
> Why call yourself /his/ if you don't even know history?
Is this bait?
Why didn't anyone post Ayn Rand's testimony about "Song of Russia" (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film about USSR made in 1944)?
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
Ayn Rand:
> I don't know whether there are a hundred people in Russia, private individuals, who own radios.
> You also see that they have long-distance telephones. ... Where they got this long-distance phone, I don't know.
> You see a peasant at home with a close-up of food for which anyone there would have been murdered. If anybody had such food in Russia in that time he couldn't remain alive, because he would have been torn apart by neighbors trying to get food.
> Also realize that when all this sweetness and light was going on in the first part of the picture, with all these happy, free people, there was not a GPU agent among them, with no food lines, no persecution -- complete freedom and happiness, with everybody smiling.
McDowell:
> That is a great change from the Russians I have always known, and I have known a lot of them. Don't they do things at all like Americans? Don't they walk across town to visit their mother-in-law or somebody?
Ayn Rand:
> Look, it is very hard to explain. It is almost impossible to convey to a free people what it is like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. I can tell you a lot of details. I can never completely convince you, because you are free. It is in a way good that you can't even conceive of what it is like. Certainly they have friends and mothers-in-law. They try to live a human life, but you understand it is totally inhuman. Try to imagine what it is like if you are in constant terror from morning till night and at night you are waiting for the doorbell to ring, where you are afraid of anything and everybody, living in a country where human life is nothing, less than nothing, and you know it. You don't know who or when is going to do what to you because you may have friends who spy on you, where there is no law and any rights of any kind.
>>1048637
>Germany
That's only half right. Former East Germany is still feeling the effects of the communist rule, although to a lesser extent that the post-Soviet countries.
And Germany as a whole is an economic power mainly due to the American financial help in the form of the Marshall plan; help that the Eastern block never received.
>>1049671
> of the communist rule
Yeah. Nothing to do with the transition period, when West Germany essentially sabotaged East to secure dominant position in future united Germany.
>>1049702
Oh please. A lot of selling out of cheap eastern companies took place, but you can't say East Germany was anywhere near as developed as West Germany.
>>1049702
>east Germany basically stagnates under Communist rule
>western Germany out produces Nazi Germany in total good within two decades after being reduced to literal rubble under capitalism
>fucking capitalists being better than us how dare they
>>1049749
idk easter germany did really good for itself, considering in the immediate aftermath of the war Stalin basically plundered the place for any useful machinery and shipped it back to Russia.
>>1049709
> A lot of selling out of cheap eastern companies took place
Cheap?
It took one year to make price go down to 8% of the initial (quite pessimistic) Treuhand's estimation. And then chairman got shot for not lowering price fast enough. I doubt even 1% of the true worth was paid in the end.
"Cheap", indeed.
> but you can't say East Germany was anywhere near as developed as West Germany.
Will I be put in prison if I say it?
Because let me tell you what happened:
It begun with laws of East Germany being replaced with the laws of West, with West government taking over without any input from East's population. East was essentially annexed by the West.
Now try to imagine consequences for economy. Half of enterprises literally became illegal. New standards had to be implemented. New licences had to be acquired. Everyone had to instantly learn West laws. If you were getting anything from USSR - you got fucked. You are no longer part of COMECON and Soviet economy got tanked anyway. You needed new suppliers.
To deal with all that you needed time and money. There wasn't much time, so you needed lots of money. West money.
Where would you get money? You didn't have much. West Banks were making unreasonable demands. You couldn't even sell what you produced (not up to specifications). And even if you got through all the bureaucracy, East Germans didn't have much money now, while West shops had contracts with West companies and weren't accepting your products. Even East shops got contracts quite soon and weren't accepting your products either.
And that was just the beginning. Not only in the first few years there were 'measures', but throughout the 90s East was deliberately put in disadvantageous position. Even infrastructure was not maintained. Roads turned to shit, because it was deemed unnecessary to repair them.
But 20 years later we have young generation that goes around telling everybody "Look how communism wrecked East Germany!"
>>1048637
>Germany, as soon as the communists left Germany things instantly became better and Germany is even taking the lead in the E.U. Economy.
Do you have any idea how many fucking tens of billions of dollars worth of aid West Germany had to siphon into East after reunification? And it still is lagging behind West.
>>1049892
Uncompetitive industries selling shitty products and primitive technology get shafted when actual competition occurs. Big surprise.
>>1050132
But we will never know if they actually were "uncompetitive". Should've East annexed West, most western enterpises would've become similarly "uncompetitive" for the very same reasons.
Now, if you mean "they should've organized armed uprising against West" by saing "uncompetitive", then I might agree. Do you?
>>1050201
>communist chocolate was 100% natural and made with real butter
>pirates privatize and replace butter with margarine, vegetable oil and force the company to compete with hersheys shit
when pirates privatized the communist industry they replaced our quality products with competitive shit
in poland communists had bakeries everywhere producing wholegrain wholesome organic bread for almost free
now the competitive westerners replaced it with chemical and air filled cotton white bread
>>1050338
this our food was 100% natural and organic
even the ice cream was made with real organic butter
no cheap polyester until the perstroika, just real cotton, wool, and linen
then your fat boys came and privatized immediately replacing all quality products
>>1049981
West Germany said "LOL Deutschmarks are now at 1:1 parity with East German Marks" and completely dryfucked the Eastern economy.
Don't pretend it was about the products or competition, they currencyraped the East and destroyed 40% of their economy overnight.
>>1050132
>Uncompetitive
Yeah, they were so uncompetitive that western companies instantly made hostile takeovers after the markets have opened-up.
>>1050354
It's not true, you're just turk nigger russian who hates germany.
Or greek. Pay off your debts, nazi.
>>1050384
In commie times we used to have bakeries on every corner. Now they all are closed and supermarkets instead of them with plastic bread in plastic bags.
But I know place where fresh bread from commie-style organic bread factory is sold it's very good. And I don't eat white bread.
>>1050384
m8, I'm from Poland and I really miss is my local commie bakery.
Best bread and buns I ever ate, plus it's the only place that will sell you food at 2-6 am when you're going back from a party being hungry as fuck.
>>1050395
why would i h8 yall?
i love impregnating german broads with superior Czech semen
>>1050390
>quality bread and pussy
thank capitalists for turning our wholegrain bread into carcinogenic white sponge and our autistic, homely girls into prostitutes
>>1051779
you should worry more about your mcburgers made out of shit and sludge
and your eggroll made out of gutter oil
the sawdust shit is hoax
>>1051779
>sawdust to american sausages
that is an amerilard thing, fucktard
The 1906 book The Jungle described a common american capitalist tactic of using sawdust as an ingredient in sausages, used as cheap filler. People would seem to be eating well, but would still be undernourished.
>>1051813
It's not a hoax you stupid cuck. In Czechoslovakia we generally understood that the quality of food was great during Austria-Hungary and the First Republic and then it went down the shitter with communism and hasn't recovered to this day. The practice of additives, food coloring and replacing natural nutrients with artificial dogshit began with communism in Eastern Europe.
Unless you were growing your own food (vegetables, chickens, pigs), you were consuming mass produced, low quality, glorified dogfood.
>>1045472
Are you saying every single poll ever taken is inherently manipulated?
>>1051779
> sawdust to sausages
Fitting for a stupid memes thread.
>>1051779
>[citation needed]
>>1051876
t. 20 year old shitter falling for nostalgia memes
>>1051898
t. 10 year old animated garbage falling for revisionist memes
>>1051904
I was a child during socialism, you are a child now. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>revisionist memes
Nope. The quality of food tanked GLOBALLY around the 1950s / 1960s, in both capitalist and communist countries, due to mass industrialization of food production.
>>1051939
> 1950s
We have a grandpa in our midst.
And - no, you moron. It didn't tank GLOBALLY, because Soviet economy was different from Capitalist.
>>1051967
Yes it did tank globally, as both socialist and capitalist countries started utilizing additives (dyes, thickeners, antibiotics, preservatives, antioxidants) massively in that period.
>>1052003
>preservatives
condoms were invented by czechs to use on capitalists
>>1052039
>preservatives = condoms
Your Polglish is showing
>>1052003
Soviets had much better quality control: you needed to get things approved based on quality first. Profit was a good thing, but not mandatory.
>>1037560
>"Stalin was the greatest leader in the world he got a retarded empire and industrialized it and brought into a new golden age"
>mfw shitters haven't even read The Revolution Betrayed
>>1054529
> Trotsky's unbiased opinion about Stalin
>>1037994
I miss the stasi ;__;
>>1054748
Why would he lie tho?
>>1037560
It's probably because when Soviet Union existed, Russians were somehow relevant in the world politics. Now they're not and they've butthurt because the evil capitalistic west are much better off than they, who live mostly in poverty and under Putin's thumb.
>>1055080
What do you mean "why"?
Stalin was his personal enemy and political opponent. Trotsky's reputation as a politician hinged on Stalin being somehow somewhere wrong.
Not to mention, there was a good chance for Trotsky to get back, should the Stalin's faction lose control over government (which is why Trotsky got murdered in the end).
>>1055269
I.e. having money, good education, job and social services is not even remotely important for an average Russian?
