this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1002 points (94.3% liked)

Memes

48542 readers
2647 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah.

The CIA is why the Soviets fell. Not corruption or incompetence.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago) (1 children)

It was complicated. Kruschev, and later Gorbachev's reforms really weakened the Socialist system because they didn't properly retain strong control of the larger firms and heavy industry (a lesson the CPC took to heart), however the CIA and really the US absolutely worked tirelessly to weaken it. The Soviets also had to spend a much larger portion of their production on the millitary in order to keep parity with the US, meaning that development rates began to slow.

[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 2 points 40 minutes ago (1 children)

What is complicated about it?

The reforms you refer to allowed for political dissent. If the Soviet Union was some worker's paradise, then allowing people complain wouldn't change anything.

The simple reality is that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship that only survived as long as it did because it was a dictatorship. Once people had the option of opposing Communist rule, they did. And that is what killed the Soviet Union. Not some conspiracy by the United States or the kulaks.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 35 minutes ago (2 children)

The reforms didn't just allow for "political dissent," they worked against the Socialist system, that was based on central planning. Rather than running in a more efficient manner, it ran against itself.

Further, nobody says the Soviet Union was a "worker's paradise." It had tremendous strides for workers, but it wasn't perfect by any means.

The Soviet Union wasn't a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.

Read Blackshirts and Reds.

[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 0 points 26 minutes ago (2 children)

That's what dissent is.

Nothing you said disputes it being a dictatorship. The people could not choose their leaders, there were no limits on the power of their leaders, er go it was a dictatorship. None of your "pros" matter. And that's before we get into the lack of freedom of speech and press and total absence of transparency, meaning that I have no reason to trust those supposed accomplishments.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 17 minutes ago

No, that isn't what dissent is, it was a fundamental liberalization of the economy that favored private property over public.

Secondly, they absolutely chose their leaders.

Finally, you say life expectancy, literacy rates, and worker rights "don't matter?" That strong, sustained economic growth doesn't matter? You must be trolling.

As for distrusting the sources, you can look into them yourselves, they are well-respected.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 minutes ago

None of your “pros” matter

Healthcare? Doesn't matter.
Education? Literacy? Reading is how the communist get you, remain illiterate.
Full employment? You don't need to feed your family.
Life expectancy? Why prolong the suffering?

[–] Antiproton@programming.dev 1 points 1 minute ago

The Soviet Union was, if not a traditional dictatorship, absolutely a totalitarian autocracy. Stalin was a brutal dictator and his successors were chosen by the communist party. Elections in the USSR were for show.

Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people. The USSR's implementation of communism was so bad, it's become cliche.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (13 children)

Communism only works on a small scale. The second society gets bigger, you require a state with militaristic presence to keep the people in line. To this very day, the Marxist ideal of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" has ALWAYS resulted in centralized power structures that became brutal dictatorships.

No matter which country you pick, large ones like china or the soviet union or smaller ones like cambodia under pol pot or vietnam under the CPV, all of them have devolved into a dictatorship. Even "experiments" like yugoslavia under tito were, in the end, still dictatorships where political opposition was disallowed, a secret police was founded and tito still had absolute control. Now, you might say: "But the people lived well!", yes, for about 10 years until the 1960s where the country suffered a massive economic crash, insane debt (because commies suck at economics) and inflation. Tito was able to hold it together with sheer force until he died, and after his death, yugoslavia completely unraveled into the mess it is today.

I know you like to cope with "oh no the evil CIA again >:(" but in the end, communism is a failed ideology that will never work on a large scale without completely suppressing individual freedom and brutally knocking down any sign of dissent.

Edit: By the way, I'm more than willing to argue about this - however, I just noticed that I'm on lemmy.ml so I'll most likely get banned for not conforming to the tankie-ideals.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›