you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Wrong, from the link I posted:

Capitalist hegemony has short-circuited people into buying wildly illogical and ridiculous propaganda like: "Lift yourselves up by the bootstraps" (which shows the almost religious power of capitalist propaganda, that the impossible can become possible), or "Communism doesn't work", when in fact Communism did work extremely well.

Examples from this post by /u/bayarea415, Stephen Gowans - Do publicly owned, planned economies work, Ian Goodrum - Socialism vs Capitalism and quality of life, and yogthos's USSR acheivements post about the USSR specifically:

When it is claimed that a system works, we should ask, who it works for. Capitalism benefits a tiny number of rapacious capitalists, to the detriment of the rest of us, while Socialism works for the masses.

For an overview of the soviet experiment, watch this brilliant talk by Micheal Parenti, or read his article, Left anticommunism, the unkindest cut.

Also read this great article by Stephen Gowans, Do publicly owned, planned economies work?. Audio on youtube

Bonus vid about cyber-communism: Paul Cockshott - Going beyond money.

More sources: Socialism Crash Course, Socialism FAQ, Glossary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    That's all awesome. So it's still around, right? It didn't collapse within one generation or anything, did it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    It was overthrown by the USA, as the USA strangled most attempts worldwide in their cradles also.

    Primarily via the arms race in the USSR's case. You can read more about that here:

    Stephen Gowans - Do publicly owned, planned economies work,

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Thanks for your reading of Gabriel Rockhill. I’ve seen some of his interviews, and they are impressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    That's a yes, it collapsed within one generation. Such an outstanding method of government!

    If all it took, according to you, is one department of one nation to bring it down, it was not strong.

    But we both know that's not why it collapsed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The USA was and remains the richest, most powerful country in history, and responsible for most of the overthrows, coups, and mass killings in the 20th century.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What does that have to do with the internal collapse of the USSR?

    You do know that's not a country anymore, right? Or hasn't that news reached .ml yet?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    What does that have to do with the internal collapse of the USSR?

    you've still not made any actual assertions. "The internal collapse of the USSR" makes it seem like you're gesturing toward having some actual knowledge, which you're refusing to disclose, instead making smug assertions that this hidden vague knowledge that you refuse to declare means you're right. So, what does "the internal collapse of the USSR" actually mean to you? What are you imagining (the pictures and words in your brain) when you say "the internal collapse of the USSR," and what were the causes in your opinion for whatever you're imagining?

    It doesn't seem like you actually know what you're talking about, because you're desperately avoiding making real substantive statements in any of these comments, instead throwing tantrums when pressed on what you actually think. Tell us your actual positions, without petulant 'McCarthy-if-he-was-a-redditor' tantrums, or otherwise stop pretending to have any.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    But we both know that’s not why it collapsed.

    okay, then tell us why you think it collapsed? These vague insinuations and gesturing don't prove your point, they make it seem like you're unsure of the basis of your own assertions.

    Edit: And for the record, the first ever experiment of a modern socialist country in history, with no earlier examples to work off of, succumbing to a series of both external and internal contradictions doesn't say anything concretely about the viability of socialism as a whole. In fact, their massively successful strides toward constructing new relations of society, and the betterment of living standards for the vast masses of its people, and the provided security of housing, employment, nutrition, community, and healthcare which was established after fully collectivizing and industrializing (industrializing in 1/10 of the time it took the west to industrialize, without the fundamental basis of primitive accumulation through global colonialism, settler-colonialism, genocide, chattel slavery, child labor, aggressive wars, and malthusian sanitation practices that under-girded the western industrial revolution; and doing so after suffering such destruction in WWI and the civil and counter-revolutionary-interventionist war no less) proves there are extremely strong cases for it being a model of success to learn from and build off of, while learning from its shortcomings and mistakes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments