• Donkter@lemmy.world
      2819·
      2 days ago

      I don’t understand this point. Or actually, what it’s trying to say at all. This doesn’t refute the fact stated in the post. “It happened in a bad way.” Yeah, I agree, and I would go further to say that it’s easily one of the worst human rights atrocities in history, but I have some bad news about how most of the world developed its wealth. And I got further news for the response that I can already smell cooking none of it is justified.

      But the worst news of all: “yes let’s just ignore Stalinism” as a phrase is such a brainded take. I’m still reeling trying to figure out how it factors into this conversation at all.

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          1416·
          2 days ago

          So this is amazing because you called out my preemptive dismissal, then walked face-first into saying exactly what I preempted.

          The only thing this post points out is that people point to Russia as some sort of example of how communism (well, Russia’s form of “communism” which is a whole other thing) doesn’t work economically. This clearly doesn’t make sense because Russia went from agrarian farmers to an industrialized nation considered one of the 2 “great powers” in the world. That doesn’t seem like a failed economic system to me. It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work. It just talks about the economics.

          Now what this post never mentions is the social system in which they became an economic powerhouse. Not because we’re dismissing or ignoring human rights abuses, but because it literally is not relevant to the argument being made, which is specifically a counter argument to people saying communism doesn’t work economically.

          We can see this in this post because you have to waffle around saying “well, no one does it without human rights abuses, if this was a pro-american post I would be arguing the opposite, I actually hate both sides etc.” the reason you have to take such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance is because there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.

          • binux@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            106·
            2 days ago

            It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work.

            The analogy is apt because it’s drawing attention to the inherent disingenuous nature of the post, i.e. making a point of Russia’s rapid growth industrially without taking into account the massive mortality and suffering that went hand in hand with that. They are, at least arguably, of equal moral dubiousness.

            It just talks about the economics.

            Hmm… and what powered and lived under said economy, I wonder… Surely it couldn’t be the people and the society they compose, which are thereby necessary to mention in this context to remain logically coherent… No, the economy must live in some nonsensical and abstracted theoretical realm, so we can just go with that, certainly.

            human rights abuses…literally not relevant to the argument being made.

            This is a joke, right? You don’t actually think the society and people an economy is composed of and the suffering they are dealt is “irrelevant” to said economy? I’m sorry, but what the flying fuck kind of logic even is this?

            such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance

            Assuming you’re not a campist, I’m sure you can understand the fact that reality (and therefore any opinion also) isn’t so black and white as needing to pick one group or the other without allowing for any nuance.

            there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.

            Considering how OP’s post consists of a juxtaposition between Russia’s rapid industrialization and the way they are typically portrayed in the US without any nuance, I think most would agree that it’s important to consider the human cost involved in said industrialization, specifically at the hand, at least in part, of Stalinism. Economies can’t really be discussed historically in an abstract bubble separated from any and all sociological factors, that’s not how it works, like, at all.

            • Donkter@lemmy.world
              3·
              1 day ago

              I think I see the two different arguments we’re speaking past each other about, so I’ll make an analogy. Imagine someone made an argument saying:

              "Sorbet is made out of sugar and fruit juice.

              The dairy education system: Ice cream is superior because Sorbet isn’t sweet"

              And someone comments: “Yes, let’s just ignore the human rights abuses that go into farming the fruit that made the sorbet”

              It’s true that sorbet is also made by an exploitative system, similar to how the dairy industry sucks for similar human and animal rights abuses. But the original post (like this one) is not saying sorbet is superior because it is also sweet, nor is it justifying the exploitative fruit farming industry by saying sorbet is able to be sweet like ice cream is sweet. It never denied that ice cream isn’t sweet, in fact, if anything all it did was place sorbet on the same level. It’s simply pointing out how clearly ill-conceived it is to pretend like sorbet hasn’t also demonstrated it’s viability as an economic system.

              This analogy is silly, it came off the top of my head, I hope it shows why the argument is a non-sequiter. I think plenty of people are making the leap in logic of imagining the continuing argument as if the OP is saying “communism rules, capitalism drools”, but it just doesn’t.

              Also, I’d like to say, pretending that Russia for those 50 years was demonstrating glorious perfect communism is stupid, but that only further helps the argument because it’s pointed to by the US as an example of communism and this post argues that on it’s face that’s a bad argument.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
        31·
        2 days ago

        it’s easily one of the worst human rights atrocities in history,

        You’d have to be a denialist about a huge number of human rights abuses to think this

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          3·
          2 days ago

          That’s maybe fair, I said that to throw them a bone and show that I’m not concerned with trying to deny anything about Stalinism to make my point.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        2·
        9 hours ago

        Can you explain what Stalin added to Marxism-Leninism that diverged from the basis set by Marx and Lenin? Stalin’s contributions are largely limited to linguistics and the national question, the basis is Marx and Lenin, including the dictatorship of the proletariat over capitalists and reactionaries. Marx and Engels were both called “authoritarian” by their critics.

  • bitteroldcoot@piefed.socialEnglish
    326·
    2 days ago

    I’m pretty sure Stalin and his secret police didn’t give them a choice.

    When they captured a B-29 Superfortress they set up a special program to duplicate it right down to patch covering a hole in the fuselage. With special telephone lines leading directly to Stalin and all the design shops. Anyone who fucked up went to the gulag.

    https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0609bomber/

  • viertesauge@feddit.orgEnglish
    275·
    2 days ago

    Depending on what you count as industrialization you can put basically every country that ever industrialized ever in a 40 to 50 year time frame. Obviously early adopter like the UK took a bit longer while later adopters like the UDSSR, China or Japan for example could learn from the others and be faster. How does this have to do anything with communism?

  • socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
    96·
    2 days ago

    It’s kind of an odd reading of history to pretend like the enlightenment and ensuing industrial revolution didn’t lift most of the “developed” world out of poverty. Sure, some countries got there through something adjacent to socialism, and some countries got there through capitalism. But the common thread seems like it has more to do with ending feudalism and advanced manufacturing than pure economic theory.

  • KokusnussRitter@discuss.tchncs.de
    41·
    2 days ago

    I believe whatade this possible was the centralized state which allowed for quick organization of projects and the belief held in communism that everyone is equal. I am however unsure if communism in the UDSSR worked overall. I am admitedly uninformed, but if it was anything like the GDR, I’d say no. (Planned economy, scarcity of goods, strict surveillance)

    • Zos_Kia@jlai.lu
      3·
      2 days ago

      If you take a look at USSR economic growth over time you’ll see that it is very linear with very few accidents. Over the same time period, US economy goes a bit faster by contorting itself into fits and spurts and crisis after crisis.

      Some would say that makes the communist economy better, as it’s somewhat slower but more reliable and predictable. But capitalists hate it because in a rational economy they can’t bet on booms and busts.

      So, yeah, it definitely did work and if there hadn’t been an arms race and a cold war the Soviet union probably wouldn’t have collapsed.

  • sougstron@lemmy.world
    24·
    2 days ago

    And another 30 years was strictly declining before the end. Economically best version was when Stalin was rule. He has positive GDP even at end of WW2 without oil trading, built many DBs and train many scientists that allows to flight in space (when Stalin was die but we know who make it possible and whos made that inertion). After it in next 30 years one big thing that ussr was made is crude oil trading that allow to fuck off other economy aspects because leaders and elites have enough money from it by some time. And after some crisises (own wars that(surprise!) costs some money, middle east wars that put oil prices down) ussr finally made economical suicide by printing money as much as they needed for support they military. Some years and that union was gone.

    Lenin was austrian-bribed version of currently died Navalny(paid from EU) but way more bloody and he was gloried that country (Russian Empire) is losing in WW1. He put country in the ruins and after it was stealing by military force most of food from people to feed up his military to stabilize his throne because country was poor to make it available by another ways after inner war that is Lenin was started(want to put the meme - what makes it? What makes it?). If Stalin was the same dumb like Lenin, nazis can easily invade this weak union.

    And thats all about economics and the dumbs(and elites that want more and more money) in economics in the first place.