I miss the Soviet Union.

[BADecker]

Imagine a system that took a backwards land of peasants literally to the peak of human existence in just 40 years and oh by the way defeated the greatest evil in human history in the middle of all that.  

And did it by killing off millions, and taking away the freedom of millions of others, and still couldn't do as good a job as America has done with freedom. Are you sure it isn't "coins4commics?"

[1714845418]

1714845418

[1714845418]

1714845418

[hipuzid]

I miss the Soviet Union. I never visited the country during its 72 years of existence, and I didn’t much like what I read about it in late-Cold War newspapers and library copies of Soviet Life: the long queues for bread, the military parades presided over by impassive bemedaled field marshals, the kitschy tributes to dictators, the Olympians inflated by performance-enhancing drugs. Communism, with its denial of both God and the individual, never appealed to me as a way of life, and I doubt it was much good for the Russian worker, the Polish worker, the East German worker, or the Yugoslavian worker.

Communism was, however, fantastic for the American worker. It’s no coincidence that the golden age of American equality, that period from the 1940s to the 1970s when the gap between CEOs and employees hit its all-time low, was almost exactly coterminous with the Cold War. As any capitalist will tell you, competition is good for the marketplace. It forces businesses to create better products and more efficient services for consumers. The same is true for capitalism itself: as a means of raising the living standards of an entire society, it never functioned better than when it was forced to compete with a rival economic system. [...]

An economy without a marketplace will produce only the bare minimum necessary for survival. But capitalism, in its rawest form, leads to the same result. Unless tempered by unionization or a social welfare state, the iron law of wages reduces the majority of workers to a subsistence level, while creating vast wealth for a tiny ownership class. Ronald Reagan advanced a false dichotomy between Communism and capitalism that is still with us, 25 years after his presidency ended. It’s true, as Louise Bryant said in “Reds,” that Communism would never have worked in the United States — but capitalism isn’t working as well without it.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/communism_saved_the_american_worker_how_soviet_competition_raised_our_living_standards/

You miss Soviet Union because you obviously never lived under under totalitarian regime.If you want to check it out, go try live in Venezuela,Cuba or North Korea.

Regarding american workers and period of prosperity,it has nothing to do with Soviet Union.Decline for US workers started with development of China.

[KingScorpio]

I miss the Soviet Union. I never visited the country during its 72 years of existence, and I didn’t much like what I read about it in late-Cold War newspapers and library copies of Soviet Life: the long queues for bread, the military parades presided over by impassive bemedaled field marshals, the kitschy tributes to dictators, the Olympians inflated by performance-enhancing drugs. Communism, with its denial of both God and the individual, never appealed to me as a way of life, and I doubt it was much good for the Russian worker, the Polish worker, the East German worker, or the Yugoslavian worker.

Communism was, however, fantastic for the American worker. It’s no coincidence that the golden age of American equality, that period from the 1940s to the 1970s when the gap between CEOs and employees hit its all-time low, was almost exactly coterminous with the Cold War. As any capitalist will tell you, competition is good for the marketplace. It forces businesses to create better products and more efficient services for consumers. The same is true for capitalism itself: as a means of raising the living standards of an entire society, it never functioned better than when it was forced to compete with a rival economic system. [...]

An economy without a marketplace will produce only the bare minimum necessary for survival. But capitalism, in its rawest form, leads to the same result. Unless tempered by unionization or a social welfare state, the iron law of wages reduces the majority of workers to a subsistence level, while creating vast wealth for a tiny ownership class. Ronald Reagan advanced a false dichotomy between Communism and capitalism that is still with us, 25 years after his presidency ended. It’s true, as Louise Bryant said in “Reds,” that Communism would never have worked in the United States — but capitalism isn’t working as well without it.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/communism_saved_the_american_worker_how_soviet_competition_raised_our_living_standards/

You miss Soviet Union because you obviously never lived under under totalitarian regime.If you want to check it out, go try live in Venezuela,Cuba or North Korea.

Regarding american workers and period of prosperity,it has nothing to do with Soviet Union.Decline for US workers started with development of China.

well the west is also a totalitarian regime if you dont want to join being money earning of the banking cartels there.

[coins4commies]

I miss the Soviet Union. I never visited the country during its 72 years of existence, and I didn’t much like what I read about it in late-Cold War newspapers and library copies of Soviet Life: the long queues for bread, the military parades presided over by impassive bemedaled field marshals, the kitschy tributes to dictators, the Olympians inflated by performance-enhancing drugs. Communism, with its denial of both God and the individual, never appealed to me as a way of life, and I doubt it was much good for the Russian worker, the Polish worker, the East German worker, or the Yugoslavian worker.

Communism was, however, fantastic for the American worker. It’s no coincidence that the golden age of American equality, that period from the 1940s to the 1970s when the gap between CEOs and employees hit its all-time low, was almost exactly coterminous with the Cold War. As any capitalist will tell you, competition is good for the marketplace. It forces businesses to create better products and more efficient services for consumers. The same is true for capitalism itself: as a means of raising the living standards of an entire society, it never functioned better than when it was forced to compete with a rival economic system. [...]

An economy without a marketplace will produce only the bare minimum necessary for survival. But capitalism, in its rawest form, leads to the same result. Unless tempered by unionization or a social welfare state, the iron law of wages reduces the majority of workers to a subsistence level, while creating vast wealth for a tiny ownership class. Ronald Reagan advanced a false dichotomy between Communism and capitalism that is still with us, 25 years after his presidency ended. It’s true, as Louise Bryant said in “Reds,” that Communism would never have worked in the United States — but capitalism isn’t working as well without it.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/communism_saved_the_american_worker_how_soviet_competition_raised_our_living_standards/

You miss Soviet Union because you obviously never lived under under totalitarian regime.If you want to check it out, go try live in Venezuela,Cuba or North Korea.

Regarding american workers and period of prosperity,it has nothing to do with Soviet Union.Decline for US workers started with development of China.

Life is pretty good in Cuba.  

Imagine a system that took a backwards land of peasants literally to the peak of human existence in just 40 years and oh by the way defeated the greatest evil in human history in the middle of all that.  

And did it by killing off millions, and taking away the freedom of millions of others, and still couldn't do as good a job as America has done with freedom. Are you sure it isn't "coins4commics?"

This is such a huge exaggeration.  They killed people yes but so did every powerful country in human history.  No one is saying they were saints but their advancements to human civilization as well as the general state of society in Russia from 1921-1961 were undeniably great. 

[TECSHARE]

No one is saying they were saints but their advancements to human civilization as well as the general state of society in Russia from 1921-1961 were undeniably great. 

You are fucking out of your mind.

[af_newbie]

...

Life is pretty good in Cuba.  

...

Which part?  And more importantly for whom?

Have you been to Cuba?

No tienes ninguna idea.

[coins4commies]

...

Life is pretty good in Cuba.  

...

Which part?  And more importantly for whom?

Have you been to Cuba?

No tienes ninguna idea.

Well I'd like to start by saying its better for hurricane victims.  In 2017, hurricane Irma was a direct hit on Cuba as a cat5.  It killed 10 people there and weakened before hitting Florida where it killed 84 people.  By contrast, Hurricane Maria was a hurricane of similar strength and killed over 3000 people.  Its not even close.  Disaster preparedness in the US is a disaster itself and despite aggressive embargo and significantly lower national resources, Cuba does so much more with less.  Its not just disaster preparedness, Cuba also leads the way in Latin America when it comes to healthcare, education, and sustainability.  

No one is saying they were saints but their advancements to human civilization as well as the general state of society in Russia from 1921-1961 were undeniably great. 

You are fucking out of your mind.

Yeah, even though I said they weren't saints (what superpower was?), just throw everything else out of the window in favor of the simplistic "Stalin man bad!" analysis.  Every imperial power has done bad things because being imperial is already evil in the first place.  Level headed humans can appreciate the fact that humanity has been to and made use of space without simultaneously condoning mass murder. 

[af_newbie]

...

Life is pretty good in Cuba.  

...

Which part?  And more importantly for whom?

Have you been to Cuba?

No tienes ninguna idea.

Well I'd like to start by saying its better for hurricane victims.  In 2017, hurricane Irma was a direct hit on Cuba as a cat5.  It killed 10 people there and weakened before hitting Florida where it killed 84 people.  By contrast, Hurricane Maria was a hurricane of similar strength and killed over 3000 people.  Its not even close.  Disaster preparedness in the US is a disaster itself and despite aggressive embargo and significantly lower national resources, Cuba does so much more with less.  Its not just disaster preparedness, Cuba also leads the way in Latin America when it comes to healthcare, education, and sustainability.  

These are slogans, they mean nothing to an average Cuban.

I suggest you go and live in Cuba for a few months, just make sure you don't take more than $20/month with you.  You'll very quickly learn what it is like to live in Cuba.  You will change your mind in a New York minute.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah, even though I said they weren't saints (what superpower was?), just throw everything else out of the window in favor of the simplistic "Stalin man bad!" analysis.  Every imperial power has done bad things because being imperial is already evil in the first place.  Level headed humans can appreciate the fact that humanity has been to and made use of space without simultaneously condoning mass murder. 

"not a saint" wow, what a harsh criticism of one of the greatest mass murderers alive. You mean like how you throw out even acknowledging the existence of these horrible situations by just ignoring they happened and calling the time under this system as "undeniably great". What a master debater.

[KingScorpio]

well its boring to live in communism though

[coins4commies]

Yeah, even though I said they weren't saints (what superpower was?), just throw everything else out of the window in favor of the simplistic "Stalin man bad!" analysis.  Every imperial power has done bad things because being imperial is already evil in the first place.  Level headed humans can appreciate the fact that humanity has been to and made use of space without simultaneously condoning mass murder.  

"not a saint" wow, what a harsh criticism of one of the greatest mass murderers alive. You mean like how you throw out even acknowledging the existence of these horrible situations by just ignoring they happened and calling the time under this system as "undeniably great". What a master debater.

I'm not throwing it out, I'm just not talking about that.  I'm against colonialism, imperialism, and authoritarianism but that doesn't create a bias in my mind that blinds me from the great accomplishments of a system that involved all three.  Was it ideal? no. Was it a utopia? no.  Were the accomplishments relatively greater than every other empire of the 20th century?  Of course!

These are slogans, they mean nothing to an average Cuban.

I suggest you go and live in Cuba for a few months, just make sure you don't take more than $20/month with you.  You'll very quickly learn what it is like to live in Cuba.  You will change your mind in a New York minute.

They are actual facts not slogans.   Those generalized facts literally apply to the average cuban.   Why don't you go live in the next hurricane Maria or Katrina?  I wonder what life is like living in America as a dead baby. 

[TECSHARE]

Yeah, even though I said they weren't saints (what superpower was?), just throw everything else out of the window in favor of the simplistic "Stalin man bad!" analysis.  Every imperial power has done bad things because being imperial is already evil in the first place.  Level headed humans can appreciate the fact that humanity has been to and made use of space without simultaneously condoning mass murder.  

"not a saint" wow, what a harsh criticism of one of the greatest mass murderers alive. You mean like how you throw out even acknowledging the existence of these horrible situations by just ignoring they happened and calling the time under this system as "undeniably great". What a master debater.

I'm not throwing it out, I'm just not talking about that.  I'm against colonialism, imperialism, and authoritarianism but that doesn't create a bias in my mind that blinds me from the great accomplishments of a system that involved all three.  Was it ideal? no. Was it a utopia? no.  Were the accomplishments relatively greater than every other empire of the 20th century?  Of course!

Oh, you just aren't talking about it while you claim the era  was "undeniably great", even though the fact a genocidal maniac was in charge most of that time making your claim in fact quite deniable. How convenient. No it wasn't utopia, it was the closest thing I have ever learned about till this day to Hell on Earth. Greater than any other empire... I would laugh at you if you weren't so pathetically mindless.

[coins4commies]

You should learn about all of the major atrocities in history instead of just microfocusing on famine or gulag.  Far more was done than Stalin's policies which may or may not have been genocidal (its literally debated amongst historians).   Its telling that you never talk about anything but communist famines which may or may not have been targeted.  Its believable that you never learned about anything else besides that and the holocaust but its also believable that you have a subconscious excuse that dismisses most mass murder as part of the "good fight". 

Not my words- Via wikipedia

For most Westerners and anti-communist Russians, he is viewed overwhelmingly negatively as a mass murderer;[853] for significant numbers of Russians and Georgians, he is regarded as a great statesman and state-builder.[853]

Wow its almost as if there are multiple perspectives to consider and a complex historical analysis is necessary.

In under three decades, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a major industrial world power,[855] one which could "claim impressive achievements" in terms of urbanisation, military strength, education, and Soviet pride.[856] Under his rule, the average Soviet life expectancy grew due to improved living conditions, nutrition, and medical care;[857] mortality rates declined.[858] Although millions of Soviet citizens despised him, support for Stalin was nevertheless widespread throughout Soviet society.[856

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
Imagine if these events were mentioned everytime anyone said anything about the US or UK.


I can acknowledge great accomplishments of empires even though I clearly despise them.  I love the fact that so much of the world speaks English and can acknowledge that without condoning the Bengal famine.  I can talk about great things the US has accomplished without brining up all of its atrocities.  I acknowledge that despite not having the best quality of life or ethics, no nation has accomplished more than the US in the latter part of the 20th century.  That doesn't automatically make me culpable for the very things I spend so much time ridiculing.

Everything is so simple to you.  You have only projected that you deal in absolutes and have no ability to perceive nuance.  You claim to know so much history but learning history without multiple perspectives and contexts is pointless.  Can you give a list of good things about the Soviet Union to prove you aren't a complete bot?  Its a captcha. 

[af_newbie]

These are slogans, they mean nothing to an average Cuban.

I suggest you go and live in Cuba for a few months, just make sure you don't take more than $20/month with you.  You'll very quickly learn what it is like to live in Cuba.  You will change your mind in a New York minute.

They are actual facts not slogans.   Those generalized facts literally apply to the average cuban.   Why don't you go live in the next hurricane Maria or Katrina?  I wonder what life is like living in America as a dead baby.  

I am not the one who advocates that living in hurricane-affected areas is good for you.  

You said that communism offers many benefits so I suggested you go and live there to verify your hypothesis.

BTW, natural disasters such as hurricanes are not related to the economic system.  How you correlated the two is beyond me.

I guess some brains work in the mysterious ways, LOL.

[TECSHARE]

You should learn about all of the major atrocities in history instead of just microfocusing on famine or gulag.  Far more was done than Stalin's policies which may or may not have been genocidal (its literally debated amongst historians).   Its telling that you never talk about anything but communist famines which may or may not have been targeted.  Its believable that you never learned about anything else besides that and the holocaust but its also believable that you have a subconscious excuse that dismisses most mass murder as part of the "good fight". 

Not my words- Via wikipedia

For most Westerners and anti-communist Russians, he is viewed overwhelmingly negatively as a mass murderer;[853] for significant numbers of Russians and Georgians, he is regarded as a great statesman and state-builder.[853]

Wow its almost as if there are multiple perspectives to consider and a complex historical analysis is necessary.

In under three decades, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a major industrial world power,[855] one which could "claim impressive achievements" in terms of urbanisation, military strength, education, and Soviet pride.[856] Under his rule, the average Soviet life expectancy grew due to improved living conditions, nutrition, and medical care;[857] mortality rates declined.[858] Although millions of Soviet citizens despised him, support for Stalin was nevertheless widespread throughout Soviet society.[856

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
Imagine if these events were mentioned everytime anyone said anything about the US or UK.


I can acknowledge great accomplishments of empires even though I clearly despise them.  I love the fact that so much of the world speaks English and can acknowledge that without condoning the Bengal famine.  I can talk about great things the US has accomplished without brining up all of its atrocities.  I acknowledge that despite not having the best quality of life or ethics, no nation has accomplished more than the US in the latter part of the 20th century.  That doesn't automatically make me culpable for the very things I spend so much time ridiculing.

Everything is so simple to you.  You have only projected that you deal in absolutes and have no ability to perceive nuance.  You claim to know so much history but learning history without multiple perspectives and contexts is pointless.  Can you give a list of good things about the Soviet Union to prove you aren't a complete bot?  Its a captcha. 

Stalin may or may not have been genocidal huh? No, really, its not a debate anyone taken seriously is having. Holodomor was mostly the direct result of directed famine, it is telling that you did not know this, then proceed to claim it is telling I do not bring up famine. Also, it was very clearly well documented the famine was caused purposefully.

You know, it is amazing the level of projection you are capable of. I mean at this point either you have to be literally one of the most brainwashed and naive, and or mentally ill individuals I have ever encountered, or you are here doing a job. You are the one glossing over a genocidal maniac saying what he did was great, not me. If a subconscious desire to justify the mass murders exists in anyone here, it is you. I have made it quite clear I don't think it is justified, you however keep defending those actions, ideologies and the people responsible for them.

So which is it? Are you mentally ill and dumb or are you on the job here? Can you give a good list of things to prove you aren't a retard?

[squatz1]

So what you are saying is that the threat of communism was what made capitalism great? I can see that.
What the US has right now looks nothing like a free market economy. No matter what its branded as.

Even if we don't have the 'free market economy' that some people wanted, I do think that our current system is the best system that is currently out there. Just like Winston Churchill said about Democracy, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others", which is what I think about Capitalism.

It without a doubt has its flaws, but it is the best system that is currently available to lift people out of poverty. I think that commie Hellfish even agrees with me on this one.

But back onto the topic here, I do wish that I was able to visit the country and see the issues that we see in museums and hear about in books. There's something that is much nicer, and more touching, about seeing something in person rather than trusting other people to document it.

[coins4commies]

Stalin may or may not have been genocidal huh? No, really, its not a debate anyone taken seriously is having. Holodomor was mostly the direct result of directed famine, it is telling that you did not know this, then proceed to claim it is telling I do not bring up famine. Also, it was very clearly well documented the famine was caused purposefully.

You know, it is amazing the level of projection you are capable of. I mean at this point either you have to be literally one of the most brainwashed and naive, and or mentally ill individuals I have ever encountered, or you are here doing a job. You are the one glossing over a genocidal maniac saying what he did was great, not me. If a subconscious desire to justify the mass murders exists in anyone here, it is you. I have made it quite clear I don't think it is justified, you however keep defending those actions, ideologies and the people responsible for them.

So which is it? Are you mentally ill and dumb or are you on the job here? Can you give a good list of things to prove you aren't a retard?

I know of that claim but do not know the truth.  Thats why I said may OR may not.  Only you could claim to know the intent of someone who lived nearly a century ago. 

Historians continue to debate whether or not the 1932–33 Ukrainian famine—known in Ukraine as the Holodomor—should be called a genocide.[893] Twenty-six countries officially recognize it under the legal definition of genocide. In 2006, the Ukrainian Parliament declared it to be such,[894] and in 2010 a Ukrainian court posthumously convicted Stalin, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, and other Soviet leaders of genocide.[895][896] Popular among some Ukrainian nationalists is the idea that Stalin consciously organised the famine to suppress national desires among the Ukrainian people. This interpretation has been rejected by more recent historical studies.[897] These have articulated the view that—while Stalin's policies contributed significantly to the high mortality rate—there is no evidence that Stalin or the Soviet government consciously engineered the famine.[898][899] The idea that this was a targeted attack on the Ukrainians is complicated by the widespread suffering that also affected other Soviet peoples in the famine, including the Russians, and the fact that more died in Kazakhstan than Ukraine itself.[900] Within Ukraine, ethnic Poles and Bulgarians died in similar proportions to ethnic Ukrainians.[901] Despite any lack of clear intent on Stalin's part, the historian Norman Naimark noted that although there may not be sufficient "evidence to convict him in an international court of justice as a genocidaire[...] that does not mean that the event itself cannot be judged as genocide".[902]

Michael Ellman argues that mass deaths from famines are not a "uniquely Stalinist evil", and compares the behavior of the Stalinist regime vis-à-vis the Holodomor to that of the British empire (towards Ireland and India) and even the G8 in contemporary times, saying that he is sympathetic to the idea that the latter "are guilty of mass manslaughter or mass deaths from criminal negligence because of their not taking obvious measures to reduce mass deaths." He argues that a possible defense of Stalin and his associates is that "their behaviour was no worse than that of many rulers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."

but even if I concede that point, my other point is that I won't just ignore so many achievements in human history because they could somehow be indirectly connected to a brutal regime.  My main argument is one on behalf of nuance and perspective.  The soviets did bad things but nothing out of the ordinary for every empire.  On the contrary, the soviets had many great accomplishments in the same time.  Great work or accomplishments doesn't mean someone is a great person nor does it excuse subsequent evil acts. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I love the idea that the world is connected and advanced even though I hate a lot of the things that also happened while it was becoming that way. 

[TECSHARE]

Stalin may or may not have been genocidal huh? No, really, its not a debate anyone taken seriously is having. Holodomor was mostly the direct result of directed famine, it is telling that you did not know this, then proceed to claim it is telling I do not bring up famine. Also, it was very clearly well documented the famine was caused purposefully.

You know, it is amazing the level of projection you are capable of. I mean at this point either you have to be literally one of the most brainwashed and naive, and or mentally ill individuals I have ever encountered, or you are here doing a job. You are the one glossing over a genocidal maniac saying what he did was great, not me. If a subconscious desire to justify the mass murders exists in anyone here, it is you. I have made it quite clear I don't think it is justified, you however keep defending those actions, ideologies and the people responsible for them.

So which is it? Are you mentally ill and dumb or are you on the job here? Can you give a good list of things to prove you aren't a retard?

I know of that claim but do not know the truth.  Thats why I said may OR may not.  Only you could claim to know the intent of someone who lived nearly a century ago. 

Historians continue to debate whether or not the 1932–33 Ukrainian famine—known in Ukraine as the Holodomor—should be called a genocide.[893] Twenty-six countries officially recognize it under the legal definition of genocide. In 2006, the Ukrainian Parliament declared it to be such,[894] and in 2010 a Ukrainian court posthumously convicted Stalin, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, and other Soviet leaders of genocide.[895][896] Popular among some Ukrainian nationalists is the idea that Stalin consciously organised the famine to suppress national desires among the Ukrainian people. This interpretation has been rejected by more recent historical studies.[897] These have articulated the view that—while Stalin's policies contributed significantly to the high mortality rate—there is no evidence that Stalin or the Soviet government consciously engineered the famine.[898][899] The idea that this was a targeted attack on the Ukrainians is complicated by the widespread suffering that also affected other Soviet peoples in the famine, including the Russians, and the fact that more died in Kazakhstan than Ukraine itself.[900] Within Ukraine, ethnic Poles and Bulgarians died in similar proportions to ethnic Ukrainians.[901] Despite any lack of clear intent on Stalin's part, the historian Norman Naimark noted that although there may not be sufficient "evidence to convict him in an international court of justice as a genocidaire[...] that does not mean that the event itself cannot be judged as genocide".[902]

Michael Ellman argues that mass deaths from famines are not a "uniquely Stalinist evil", and compares the behavior of the Stalinist regime vis-à-vis the Holodomor to that of the British empire (towards Ireland and India) and even the G8 in contemporary times, saying that he is sympathetic to the idea that the latter "are guilty of mass manslaughter or mass deaths from criminal negligence because of their not taking obvious measures to reduce mass deaths." He argues that a possible defense of Stalin and his associates is that "their behaviour was no worse than that of many rulers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."

but even if I concede that point, my other point is that I won't just ignore so many achievements in human history because they could somehow be indirectly connected to a brutal regime.  My main argument is one on behalf of nuance and perspective.  The soviets did bad things but nothing out of the ordinary for every empire.  On the contrary, the soviets had many great accomplishments in the same time.  Great work or accomplishments doesn't mean someone is a great person nor does it excuse subsequent evil acts. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I love the idea that the world is connected and advanced even though I hate a lot of the things that also happened while it was becoming that way. 

Yeah that is a cute little Postmodernist twist on a red herring there trying to change the goal posts to the intent rather than the factual happenings. The primary cause of death during Holodomor was in fact famine. You demonstrated your complete ignorance on the subject while trying to call me out as having a subconscious desire to justify genocide in the same breath, based on the mistaken idea I never referenced famine. This is the lunatic mental gymnastics you do to justify the Postmodernist silly putty you call your mind. Rather than admit you just made a really dumb mistake you just plaster another layer of bullshit on top and pretend no one can tell. We can.

All those great achievements... the ones that were a direct result of the industrial revolution, and that every other industrialized nation on Earth enjoyed.... quite an accomplishment he made not totally burning the place to ashes right? I'm sure it was all because of Communism and had nothing to do with technological advancement driven by capitalism that raised the standard of living for all humanity...

[coins4commies]

I'm talking about other famines.  When have you mentioned a famine that you didn't think was connected to Marxism?  I'll apologize if you show me I was wrong in that accusation.  You never referenced other famines such as the Bengal famine caused by the British because that wouldn't allow you to pretend economic ideology creates famine.  Again, my point was that every other empire has done awful things.  ALL empires are evil but not all of the accomplishments that come out of them are.  That is what I mean by asking you to process nuance.  In a nutshell, awful people can do great things and great people can do awful things.

We know people died in the famine but you seem to not understand the definition of genocide.  Genocide requires intent to kill a specific group of people.  There is no evidence of intent in this case so its unknown whether or not genocide took place.  Its a very strong term.  You can't just say a bunch of people dying is genocide.  

There is not gymnastics.  People dying in a famine is awful and clearly not among the list of positive accomplishments I'm referring to.  I made it clear I don't think they were saints.  No every nation did not achieve the same.  No other nation came close because Soviet competitors were already hyperdeveloped by the 20s.  I'm talking about tangible accomplishments too.   For example, No other nation put the first man in space.  This was evidence of their complete superiority in science and technology.   Imagine if Yemen became the leading global superpower by 2060.  That would be impressive regardless of how they got there.  Thats the type of development we are talking about.

No other nation had nearly the amount of technological or medical advances in the same time period and the nations that had similar progress, did so through huge government projects and not through privately owned capitalist ventures.
And thats where we connect back to OP.  The Soviets had so many great innovations that influenced the US and other nations  to improve worker conditions and expand government programs in order to keep up.  The US actually "won" in many ways because Russia putting a man in space inspired everyone to want to collectively invest in technology.  The NASA budget was increased by 500% that year in order to catch up with the Soviets.  It would have taken capitalism several more decades to find investors to finance such massive endeavors privately.  Many of the technological advancements we enjoy today are only here because of subsequent, publicly funded NASA research.

[TECSHARE]

I'm talking about other famines.  When have you mentioned a famine that you didn't think was connected to Marxism?  I'll apologize if you show me I was wrong in that accusation.  You never referenced other famines such as the Bengal famine caused by the British because that wouldn't allow you to pretend economic ideology creates famine.  Again, my point was that every other empire has done awful things.  ALL empires are evil but not all of the accomplishments that come out of them are.  That is what I mean by asking you to process nuance.  In a nutshell, awful people can do great things and great people can do awful things.

We know people died in the famine but you seem to not understand the definition of genocide.  Genocide requires intent to kill a specific group of people.  There is no evidence of intent in this case so its unknown whether or not genocide took place.  Its a very strong term.  You can't just say a bunch of people dying is genocide.  

There is not gymnastics.  People dying in a famine is awful and clearly not among the list of positive accomplishments I'm referring to.  I made it clear I don't think they were saints.  No every nation did not achieve the same.  No other nation came close because Soviet competitors were already hyperdeveloped by the 20s.  I'm talking about tangible accomplishments too.   For example, No other nation put the first man in space.  This was evidence of their complete superiority in science and technology.   Imagine if Yemen became the leading global superpower by 2060.  That would be impressive regardless of how they got there.  Thats the type of development we are talking about.

No other nation had nearly the amount of technological or medical advances in the same time period and the nations that had similar progress, did so through huge government projects and not through privately owned capitalist ventures.
And thats where we connect back to OP.  The Soviets had so many great innovations that influenced the US and other nations  to improve worker conditions and expand government programs in order to keep up.  The US actually "won" in many ways because Russia putting a man in space inspired everyone to want to collectively invest in technology.  The NASA budget was increased by 500% that year in order to catch up with the Soviets.  It would have taken capitalism several more decades to find investors to finance such massive endeavors privately.  Many of the technological advancements we enjoy today are only here because of subsequent, publicly funded NASA research.

Yes yes, it is always something other than what you just said you meant. Right and wrong are completely subjective, just perpetually keep moving those goal posts until everything is complete nonsense and you know one is going to bother to try to keep up. Then you follow up with more whataboutisms and non sequiturs.

The whole world had similar rises in quality of life and life expectancy, reduction in infant mortality as a direct result of the industrial revolution, which was a direct result of capitalist policies. This is yet another example in an endless stream of examples of Socialists and Communists attempting to constantly claim credit for everything positive capitalism does, and blame it for everything negative Socialism and Communism causes from being implemented. You don't care about reality. You care about selling your wares of collectivized narcissism. Russia went to space as a result of capturing Nazi scientists, as did the US, but this is just YET ANOTHER red herring to distract from your shifting goal posts when I call you on your horse shit.