I was wondering why Marxism was still a thing and this placed seemed to be filled with Marxists. So, why? Didn’t the fall of USSR teach us anything? Do today’s Marxists think that USSR did something wrong? In other words, will they do anything different than the dictators of the soviet union? Also, some here seem to admire Stalin. I would really have to try hard to find a community that would admire Hitler but apparently admiring Stalin, another mass murder seems to be perfectly fine!

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      144·
      3 years ago

      My favorite trope is people getting upset when you present them with basic facts that don’t fit the narrative they’ve become attached to.

      • AgreeableLandscape
        182·
        3 years ago

        I don’t usually get worked up about downvotes, either here or on Reddit, but if someone is presenting researched, reasonable, cited points in a debate, either refute their claims head on or leave them alone! Downvoting while saying nothing is a sign that you either didn’t read their points at all or have nothing to say against it.

        “You’re wrong”, “you’re stupid”, and “you’re a paid communist/Chinese/whatever shill” are not valid arguments. As they say in elementary school: “How do you know?” and “Show your work.”

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          143·
          3 years ago

          Completely agree, people aren’t downvoting some opinion they disagree with. They just don’t like the facts they’re being presented.

          • pingveno
            31·
            3 years ago

            That goes both ways. I’m getting downvotes instead of replies for some quite substantive comments.

    • JeraldOP
      24·
      3 years ago

      And it might be a good time to mention things like United States involvement in regime change (Wikpedia). It’s not an isolated issue, it’s a strategy. 100% dictatorship? I would rather starve than live in the late USSR.

    • pingveno
      812·
      3 years ago

      Let’s not sugar coat the Soviet Union, though. While it had its upsides, it was riddled with corruption and brutally oppressive towards its own people. Dissent that it is considered healthy in the West was grounds for imprisonment there. This is not some fiction cooked up by the West, but a reality acknowledged by modern Russia itself (with some irony, given the sanitized political/media landscape).

      • AgreeableLandscape
        133·
        3 years ago

        We can discuss the validity of those claims all day, but I think the fact that the majority of people who lived through the USSR want it back, and think things have gotten worse after the transition of capitalism speaks volumes.

        • stopit
          10·
          3 years ago

          US has a higher incarceration rate then any developed country. And…most of those jailed are poor and committed non violent crimes…just to add to your statement.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            113·
            3 years ago

            US basically legalized slavery. This is the same logic as legalizing bribes in form of lobbying and then claiming that you have low corruption.

        • pingveno
          410·
          3 years ago

          Yeah, and that’s awful, but US prisons aren’t full of political prisoners.

            • pingveno
              48·
              3 years ago

              I do know about that history, but it doesn’t come close to being able to chuck someone in prison for publishing something the Communist Party didn’t like.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                81·
                3 years ago

                That’s literally what US government did to Black Panthers members. One of the goals of war on drugs was to provide an excuse for arresting political dissidents of color. They also assassinated people such as MLK and Fred Hampton for saying things US government didn’t like. Perhaps you should learn a bit of history before debating?

                You can start by reading chapter 10 here to learn about repression of political dissent and political prisoners in US.

      • comfy
        51·
        3 years ago

        I agree, but that doesn’t refute this answer in the context of the original question.

        Stalin’s reign (and other USSR leaders) objectively had many benefits to the people, despite its flaws, and the switch to a capitalist economy afterward has resulted in massive issues. Even thought that’s only one interpretation of Marxism (“Marxist-Leninism”), that enough is a reason for many people to support it.

        • pingveno
          67·
          3 years ago

          Well that’s the thing, I’m not sure blaming it all on capitalism is appropriate. Also, many of the claims are incorrect or misleading.

          • Life expectancy: this article traces the drop in life expectancy to before the collapse, and speculates that it was related to anti-alcohol abuse campaigns. The claim about 1991 is also a temporary one, since they have recovered life expectancy numbers.
          • Calories: This article seems to apply here. The metrics didn’t look at food consumed, but rather production, imports, and exports. There’s a shadow factor that comes into play. The Soviet Union had more spoilage than the US due to inferior storage facilities, so many of those calories went to waste instead of to waist. It’s also a potatoes-to-beef comparison: the Soviet diet was much heavier in potatoes and grains, while the US could afford to raise cattle.
          • Nazi Germany: I don’t want to diminish the losses suffered by the people of the Soviet Union during WW2, but to credit this contribution to communism ignores something incredibly important: the Lend-Lease Act. This underpinned much of the industrial capacity behind WW2, especially in the European theater where the US had limited presence. And while Soviet Russia played an outsized role, to say it “save the world from Nazi Germany” is nearly as bad as those who focus on the US to the exclusion of other countries.
          • Ended racial inequality: This is just not even wrong. There was significant state enforced mistreatment of many ethnic minorities, particularly under Stalin but extending to after his death.
          • Ended gender inequality: While history doesn’t quite match this claim, they did make very significant strides towards gender equality.
          • zero homelessness: It was incomplete, and done in the clumsiest way possible. People were required to have a house, and just kinda shoveled into housing. Moving was made difficult by the requirement that citizens find a person to swap with. House hunting sucks when you’re just trying to find the right house. Now imagine that you also have to find a person who wants your house, and the Internet isn’t a thing yet.

          This source does a direct rebuttal of three points from a green text version of this image. This image does not contain one of the claims, but the other two are:

          • Second fastest growing economy of 20th century (after Japan): Sounds pretty good, right? The problem is that the statistics were carefully manipulated. They picked a point in time where the Soviet Union was making rapid advancements by simply adopting technology invented by those dirty capitalists, often with the help of those capitalists. Growth slowed after that, but the statistics cut off in the 70’s when the growth slowed but far before the USSR dissolved.
          • zero unemployment: This one uses funny math. The actual numbers are more or less in line with the US. The USSR also avoided publishing any reliable figures.
          • comfy
            31·
            3 years ago

            Good critique, I’ll have a read of them. Thanks.

            by simply adopting technology invented by those dirty capitalists

            Well when 90% of the countries are capitalist, where do you expect most of the world’s inventions to come from? Should they boycott most of the world over some meaningless idealism? That’s like saying “NASA adopted technologies from the Nazis” (Operation Paperclip) as if that’s a meaningful critique.

            But it seems concerning that the places that invented those technologies weren’t as effective in using them, shouldn’t they have an advantage?

            • pingveno
              4·
              3 years ago

              It was kind of a cheap jab, I admit. Still, my underlying point stands: their productivity gains were from adopting technology produced by others, so crediting them to communism at least needs a footnote. That’s especially true because of how much growth leveled off when the easy gains stopped.

              Also, the countries that invented tractors were plenty good at using them. Witness the US’s endless seas of grains, corn, and other crops. Any food insecurity in the US (or the world, for that matter) is due to distribution, not abundance.

    • JeraldOP
      26·
      3 years ago
      1. Literally any economy can become 2 largest if it has enough people, per capita wealth would be more of an indicator of well-being.
      2. Saved the world from Nazi Germany? Did you forget that Stalin first had joined hands with the Nazis and was happy to stay out of the war, until Germany attacked. Also, Stalin somewhat admired Hitler, although he didn’t like his views on the USSR. Ended the famines, yes but through gulags, I don’t think that’s a positive and no he didn’t end famines, they did happen extensively in the USSR, but yes the food production increased thanks to the slave labour provided by the camps. Ended racial and sexual inequality, well didn’t end it but they did help, so that’s a positive.

      The socialist system, certainly didn’t end poverty. that’s a nonsensical statement. Doubled life expectancy? I doubt that.

      If I didn’t comment about it, then it means that I like that. djkafdadjkfa