So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
I’m blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn’t communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You’re also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.
Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it’s quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.
It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history
succesful
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
How so? I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven’t replied other than by making up stuff on the spot. Would you care to argue otherwise from data?
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the caps-sensitivity of the Ngram viewer, good point. Regardless, you do notice that your graph proves further my point, right? That “Holodomor” is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year as a consecuence of unaware pro-capitalist propagandists like you. I repeat: do you use such scary words for capitalist-inflicted famines, or is it something you reserve for punching to your left?
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
Depends. Famines were commonplace in the Russian Empire, and it’s to be expected that in a country in preindustrial agricultural production famines would happen. Ultimately there were mistakes during the land collectivization that led to unnecessary degrees of famine, true, but remember, it was the only successful attempt in the sense that it did collectivize land in a long-lasting and widespread manner, which had been attempted countless times over the past 5 millenia with no success until that point and many deaths in every attempt, e.g. the Gracchi brothers already attempted land collectivization in ancient Rome.
The collectivization of agriculture in the USSR enabled the first ever case of a state-owned industrial revolution, which managed to make the country grow by 10-15% YEARLY in economic output. The former Russian Empire went from being a pre-capitalist agrarian society to becoming an industrializing nation in 10 years, and that wasn’t out of desire, it was out of necessity. The 1929 collectivization coincides in time (not by coincidence) with the first 5-year plan, which set in motion the industrialization of the USSR that would lead to an increase of life expectancy from 30 years of age to 60 in 30 years, even with the most devastating war in history inbetween those years. Not only did it solve hunger forever and allow for widespread healthcare, it also enabled the industrial revolution that ended up DEFEATING NAZISM. Nazis had plans to murder and forcibly reallocate all Slavic and many other peoples between Germany and Urals, which amounts to hundreds of millions of people. By defeating Nazism, the industrial revolution of the USSR, kicked off in 1929, effectively saved TENS OF MILLIONS of lives from genocide, and then gave those very people healthcare and guaranteed food that DOUBLED life expectancy in a formerly feudal backwards empire. For reference, a comparable country in economic situation in 1930 would be Brazil, which by 1965 had a life expectancy of 55 years, where at that point USSR had raised it to 68. Multiply by 200 million lives, how many tens of millions of lives saved is that?
Now tell me: knowing how many tens if not hundreds of millions of lives were saved by the 1929 collectivization and industrial plans, do you still deny its success?
I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven’t replied other than by making up stuff on the spot.
I must say that I haven’t read your sources. So I don’t even have a way of telling what they say.
That “Holodomor” is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year
You also need to consider that the Soviet Union kept the information classified until the 1980s, when it was declassified as part of Glasnost. So, why did they keep it hidden for literal decades?
Looking at those graphs you posted, it seems like Russia didn’t break 70 until 2015, which Brazil reached around the year 2000. And why does Russia’s life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed? And why does did it mostly decline between 1975 and 2005? But yeah, other than that, it’s a quite impressive growth. Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?
Exactly, your material and historical analysis of the Soviet Union is based off of NATOpedia.
In short: Wikipedia is primarily edited by white young males of english-speaking countries, so it features the bias or young males of English a speaking countries. This is well-known and even has Wikipedia articles dedicated to it. In particular, source selection on English Wikipedia is mostly taken from western news sources, so it reflects the bias of western news sources. Western news sources present systematic pro-western bias in geopolitically sensitive issues, you may recall the behaviour of western news sources regarding Palestine up to a few years ago, with no media talking of genocide and presenting the occupation of Palestine as a “both sides issue”. Other, possibly more egregious cases you may or not remember are Nayirah’s Testimony or the media flip on coverage of Russia in European countries, where up to 2022 Putin was said to be a “great governor and Russian patriot” (e.g. Francisco Marhuenda), which is now unthinkable. If you’re interested in this issue with Wikipedia, I wrote this detailed post about it some time ago.
I hope you, a self-declared socialist from what I’ve seen on your post history, will reflect on using mainstream western sources to analyze topics that are sensitive to western geopolitics as is the case for communism, we’re well aware of what the red scare in the US entailed and the lies that have been spread about socialism in general (not just the Soviet project) by the US state propaganda apparatus over the past century.
I encourage you to do some reading of my sources, especially Albert Szymanski’s “Human Rights in the Soviet Union”, which dispells a ton of western-manufactured myths about the USSR using mostly western academic sources.
And why does Russia’s life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed?
On the graph you can see Russia’s life expectancy peaked in 1990, then fell for one and a half decades coinciding with the dismantling of the USSR, and then in 2005 it starts to rise back, but doesnt reach pre-1990 levels until about 2015, so life expectancy didnt recover from capitalism until 25 years of technological advances passed. Regarding Brazil, yes, Brazil surpassed life expectancy in Russia during the crisis of the dismantling, I do think this supports my thesis that the dismantling murdered millions (by Paul Cockshott’s calculations, about 5-10 million in Russia alone).
Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?
If there were a class of owners strongly gripping to power in order to keep exploiting the majority of workers, you would expect very violent revolutions being needed to dismantle the system and remove them from power, but the transition to capitalism in the Eastern Block was overwhelmingly peaceful, which again supports my thesis that there wasn’t an owning class enjoying the fruits of others’ labour. As to why the USSR was dismantled this is a long topic, and if you’re interested in some materialist historical analysis, I recommend “Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union” by Robert Keeran and Thomas Kenny. It gives a good historical outlook on how it’s possible that the USSR survived something as impossibly difficult as WW2 and the murder of 25 million Soviet citizens (13% of the population) by Nazis, but it was dismantled in half a decade since the start of the perestroika in 1985.
Please, you’re patently showing that the reading you’ve done of the topic of the USSR is superficial and based off primarily western anticommunist sources. I encourage you to keep an open mind and read more about the project that uplifted 150 million peasants in the Russian Empire from extreme poverty to being the second most powerful nation on Earth, guaranteeing healthcare, education, housing, work, not performing unequal exchange or economic imperialism with any sort of colony unlike US and Europe with Africa and Latin America, and helping emancipatory movements such as that of Vietnam or Cuba.
Stop looking for excuses with on-the-spot reading of graphs or moving the goalposts (first wealth and de-jure ownership, then income not mattering, then radio silence about widespread access to social services and essential goods).
I’m blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn’t communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You’re also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.
Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it’s quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
How so? I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven’t replied other than by making up stuff on the spot. Would you care to argue otherwise from data?
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the caps-sensitivity of the Ngram viewer, good point. Regardless, you do notice that your graph proves further my point, right? That “Holodomor” is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year as a consecuence of unaware pro-capitalist propagandists like you. I repeat: do you use such scary words for capitalist-inflicted famines, or is it something you reserve for punching to your left?
Depends. Famines were commonplace in the Russian Empire, and it’s to be expected that in a country in preindustrial agricultural production famines would happen. Ultimately there were mistakes during the land collectivization that led to unnecessary degrees of famine, true, but remember, it was the only successful attempt in the sense that it did collectivize land in a long-lasting and widespread manner, which had been attempted countless times over the past 5 millenia with no success until that point and many deaths in every attempt, e.g. the Gracchi brothers already attempted land collectivization in ancient Rome.
The collectivization of agriculture in the USSR enabled the first ever case of a state-owned industrial revolution, which managed to make the country grow by 10-15% YEARLY in economic output. The former Russian Empire went from being a pre-capitalist agrarian society to becoming an industrializing nation in 10 years, and that wasn’t out of desire, it was out of necessity. The 1929 collectivization coincides in time (not by coincidence) with the first 5-year plan, which set in motion the industrialization of the USSR that would lead to an increase of life expectancy from 30 years of age to 60 in 30 years, even with the most devastating war in history inbetween those years. Not only did it solve hunger forever and allow for widespread healthcare, it also enabled the industrial revolution that ended up DEFEATING NAZISM. Nazis had plans to murder and forcibly reallocate all Slavic and many other peoples between Germany and Urals, which amounts to hundreds of millions of people. By defeating Nazism, the industrial revolution of the USSR, kicked off in 1929, effectively saved TENS OF MILLIONS of lives from genocide, and then gave those very people healthcare and guaranteed food that DOUBLED life expectancy in a formerly feudal backwards empire. For reference, a comparable country in economic situation in 1930 would be Brazil, which by 1965 had a life expectancy of 55 years, where at that point USSR had raised it to 68. Multiply by 200 million lives, how many tens of millions of lives saved is that?
Now tell me: knowing how many tens if not hundreds of millions of lives were saved by the 1929 collectivization and industrial plans, do you still deny its success?
Well, it’s ten PM. I’ll read it later.
Read it yet?
I must say that I haven’t read your sources. So I don’t even have a way of telling what they say.
My thesis mostly hinges on the Soviet Union not being democratic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union. People could only vote in favor or against the Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans, which always won >99% of the votes. This is impossible to achieve in a functioning democracy, especially not over decades
You also need to consider that the Soviet Union kept the information classified until the 1980s, when it was declassified as part of Glasnost. So, why did they keep it hidden for literal decades?
Looking at those graphs you posted, it seems like Russia didn’t break 70 until 2015, which Brazil reached around the year 2000. And why does Russia’s life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed? And why does did it mostly decline between 1975 and 2005? But yeah, other than that, it’s a quite impressive growth. Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?
Exactly, your material and historical analysis of the Soviet Union is based off of NATOpedia.
In short: Wikipedia is primarily edited by white young males of english-speaking countries, so it features the bias or young males of English a speaking countries. This is well-known and even has Wikipedia articles dedicated to it. In particular, source selection on English Wikipedia is mostly taken from western news sources, so it reflects the bias of western news sources. Western news sources present systematic pro-western bias in geopolitically sensitive issues, you may recall the behaviour of western news sources regarding Palestine up to a few years ago, with no media talking of genocide and presenting the occupation of Palestine as a “both sides issue”. Other, possibly more egregious cases you may or not remember are Nayirah’s Testimony or the media flip on coverage of Russia in European countries, where up to 2022 Putin was said to be a “great governor and Russian patriot” (e.g. Francisco Marhuenda), which is now unthinkable. If you’re interested in this issue with Wikipedia, I wrote this detailed post about it some time ago.
I hope you, a self-declared socialist from what I’ve seen on your post history, will reflect on using mainstream western sources to analyze topics that are sensitive to western geopolitics as is the case for communism, we’re well aware of what the red scare in the US entailed and the lies that have been spread about socialism in general (not just the Soviet project) by the US state propaganda apparatus over the past century.
I encourage you to do some reading of my sources, especially Albert Szymanski’s “Human Rights in the Soviet Union”, which dispells a ton of western-manufactured myths about the USSR using mostly western academic sources.
On the graph you can see Russia’s life expectancy peaked in 1990, then fell for one and a half decades coinciding with the dismantling of the USSR, and then in 2005 it starts to rise back, but doesnt reach pre-1990 levels until about 2015, so life expectancy didnt recover from capitalism until 25 years of technological advances passed. Regarding Brazil, yes, Brazil surpassed life expectancy in Russia during the crisis of the dismantling, I do think this supports my thesis that the dismantling murdered millions (by Paul Cockshott’s calculations, about 5-10 million in Russia alone).
If there were a class of owners strongly gripping to power in order to keep exploiting the majority of workers, you would expect very violent revolutions being needed to dismantle the system and remove them from power, but the transition to capitalism in the Eastern Block was overwhelmingly peaceful, which again supports my thesis that there wasn’t an owning class enjoying the fruits of others’ labour. As to why the USSR was dismantled this is a long topic, and if you’re interested in some materialist historical analysis, I recommend “Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union” by Robert Keeran and Thomas Kenny. It gives a good historical outlook on how it’s possible that the USSR survived something as impossibly difficult as WW2 and the murder of 25 million Soviet citizens (13% of the population) by Nazis, but it was dismantled in half a decade since the start of the perestroika in 1985.
Please, you’re patently showing that the reading you’ve done of the topic of the USSR is superficial and based off primarily western anticommunist sources. I encourage you to keep an open mind and read more about the project that uplifted 150 million peasants in the Russian Empire from extreme poverty to being the second most powerful nation on Earth, guaranteeing healthcare, education, housing, work, not performing unequal exchange or economic imperialism with any sort of colony unlike US and Europe with Africa and Latin America, and helping emancipatory movements such as that of Vietnam or Cuba.
Stop looking for excuses with on-the-spot reading of graphs or moving the goalposts (first wealth and de-jure ownership, then income not mattering, then radio silence about widespread access to social services and essential goods).