Why were all of his successors such incredibly inept fucks?
>>283325
Kruschev was actually a decent ruler: he pushed forward soviet science (especially computers and space development), invested in infrastructure, agriculture and consumer goods and was less of a dictatorial prick. Sure some of his programs did not work, but the same could be said of Stalin.
>>283325
Stalin did more harm to the Soviet Union than any of his successors (Gorbachev notwithstanding).
He was a fuck up to. USSR was literally dying after WWII.
>>283358
Khrushchev's main flaw was that his behavior on the international stage was seen as pretty embarrassing. Its part of what led to the palace coup by Brezhnev and co.
>>283372
His industrialization program was more or less necessary for the state to survive, however, and it did massively increase living standards in the long term.
>>283413
living standards for the half of the population left after collectivization
and don't fucking act like Im literally saying half of the entire Russian population Im exaggerating for effect, none of the other soviet dictators after him wound up killing millions of people
>>283372
>implying Gorbachev wasn't based
>>283446
That's why I said in the long term. The short term human cost was enormous and a ton of people died but in the long term it increased literacy and living expectancy a lot.
>>283413
Centralized control of economies works well in emergencies and short term, which helped them industrialize fast, but once the infrastructure was there it was really hurting the economy more than helping it. Russia would have honestly benefited more from opening up to foreign investment instead of bothering for collectivization with all the purges and famine Stalin's paranoid bullshit caused.
>tfw Hitler senpai will never notice you
>>283478
I wonder if advances in computer technology could in the future make centralized economies more feasible by removing human error from them. Capitalist transitions from centralized market economy seem to either be successful or a huge disaster and I've always wondered why Gorbachev's reforms basically destroyed living standards in the USSR while China managed to make it work.
>>283548
Post-SU Russians still lived better than Chinese people. Russians were just suffering a big decrease from a much higher base in living standards than the communist Chinese had. China was improving but the SU and even post-SU Russia were still way above them in development and living standards, so China was a success for improving relatively but still being lower absolutely, while Russia was a failure for degrading relatively despite being better absolutely.
>>283325
Because inept fucks were all that were left after he killed off everyone he found threatening.
>>283372
What's so bad about Gobachev? He had the right idea, just lacked the power to execute it.
>>283548
>I wonder if advances in computer technology could in the future make centralized economies more feasible by removing human error from them.
No. Ludwig von Mises (and his student Hayek) wrote a bunch of stuff about the calculation problem. It's an epistemological, not a technical issue.
>>284133
>Hayek
>Not pseudoscience.
>>284145
He's not a "scientist" at all (outside of his technical stuff on economics), but rather a philosopher and theoretician, which is the only possible angle to attack this question.
Anyway here's something about Hayek's piece on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Use_of_Knowledge_in_Society
>>283413
>His industrialization program was more or less necessary for the state to survive
Why? Could Russia have not industrialized "organically", like it was doing before WW1 erupted, and how every successful capitalist country has done?
>and it did massively increase living standards in the long term.
Actually, living standards in Russia were far lower during the 1930s than before WW1.
>>284184
>like it was doing before WW1 erupted
This. Russia pre-WW1 was THE China of then-world. An economy that was expanding and industrializing on an enormous pace and scale. One of the reasons why German generals pushed for the war was that they were aware and terrified of Russia's rapidly growing industrial might.
During WW1 Russia's industry expanded even more and it would give the country uch benefits had it survive the war intact. Unfortunately, Lenin happened and everything went to shit during the Civil War and subsequent chaos.
>>283325
>Why were all of his successors such incredibly inept fucks?
Beria - during his very brief tenure showed to be incredibly liberal and insightful. He could have been USSR's Deng.
Khrushchev - made some blunders (Virgin soil, duh!) but overally presided over a period of astonishing growth, not mentioning the achievement in science. Plus, he made serious investments in promising technologies like computers and solved some of the chronic problems which Stalin was never able to deal with, like housing shortages.
Brezhnev - a catastrophe, there's little to argue about. Had a few years of growth, mostly due to inertia, but later on the stagnation kicked it. Sabotaged the moderate reform attempts of Kosygin which could've bring the growth back. Kosygin's idea was to bring some elements of free market into the management of the economy.
Andropov - again too brief tenure to have any impact, and he was terminally ill for the latter half. But he had rather sober view of the country's problems and realized that a younger generation should tackle it. He found and fostered Gorbachev for this role.
Chernenko - chosen by the Politburo over Gorbachev as Brezhnev 2.0. Again, too short tenure, but given time he would probably drive country even deeper into shit.
Gorbachev - good intention and had the right general idea, but too idealistic and too little Machiavellian to implement them in his situation. If he had power Stalin of even Khrushchev enjoyed, USSR would likely survive.
Overall 3 good or decent vs. two disasters. The ration almost identical to that of USA.
>>283325
Infighting
>>283325
Because he left them a big pile of trouble that cannot be managed outside of war effort.
>>283325
They took after him.
>>283410
Was it autism?
>>283325
Because he had all the competent people assassinated as potential threats to his rule.
>>283358
>agriculture
And by that you mean he started buying American grain lmfao
What would have happened if Tito was Russian?
>>285589
That dude fucking loved corn. When he visited America he saw the massive corn industry and tried to implement that in Russia to the point everyone ended up hating it.
>>285620
20 less IQ points because of Mongol genetics and vodka consumption.
>>285638
I said Russian, not Finn.
>>285644
20 less IQ points because of Mongol genetics and vodka consumption, and a worse shot.
>>285620
But he was.
>>283325
communism
>>283372
>>283459
>>283548
>>284632
Are there any what if's as to what would've happened to Russia if the revolution never happened/failed?
Daily reminder that structure is a key determinant of success
Daily reminder that hierarchy is unable to cope with complexity
Daily reminder that complexity rises
>>283372
Stalin is too coarse and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.
>>286018
to be fair lenin was just mad stalin called his wife a whore
>>285756
>if your names ends with -in, it's time to get out
>>286041
sauce?
