Hey I was born there and we definitely were poor. No comment on the rest.
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
25 points (56.8% liked)
Memes
55863 readers
680 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Before or after the dissolution of socialism? People became far more impoverished after the dissolution, and the destruction of safety nets meant to help people.
Things getting worse doesn't mean they were good before lol
The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Death rates spiked:
And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:
Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries.
When you look at the US Empire and western Europe as having higher quality of life than the USSR, you are looking at the benefits of imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism and wishing the USSR also practiced this, instead of helping liberate colonies and the global south. Russia in particular was a semi-feudal backwater in 1917, and made it to space 5 decades later. The USSR was not the picture of wealth, but was for its time the picture of development and rapid progress.
Do you have charts that include all the soviets combined or just Russia? Russia practiced its own version of imperialism over Siberia, Ukraine, etc so showing charts titled "Russia" is telling. Would love to see life expectancy in Ukraine following the holodomor
It's difficult to find compiled data going over each member state of the USSR. The earliest I can find for Ukraine only goes back to 1950, but reflects the same trends in life expectancy as Russia: a doubling of life expectancy following the completion of collectivizing agriculture in the 1930s and coming out of World War II.
The USSR was not imperialist, the RSFSR was also not imperialist towards other SSRs and SFSRs. This highlights a terrible misunderstanding of socialist economics. Across the board, Russia was in general more developed due to having started off earlier, but this was not at the expense of other socialist states in the soviet bloc.
Finally, the 1930s famine was neither intentional nor did it only impact Ukraine. Surrounding areas were met with the same weather disasters and problems with kulaks, bourgeois farmers, resisting collectivization by killing livestock, burning crops, and taking up arms. The combination of struggles over collectivization with weather disasters caused agricultural output to plummet, even though collectivization increased agricultural output once it was completed, ending famine in areas where it was historically common.
Why don't you take all this misplaced energy defending an authoritarian state with really excellent propaganda and use it to support a group actually doing some good like the Zapatistas or something
I really loved with the Zapatistas were authoritarian and took all the land from the plantation owners at gun point, it was very cool of them
The Zapatistas don't have enough tanks for .ml to support them I guess
Jabril is being honest, not sarcastic.
They have a state with a military that enforces their political power via weapons. They are just as authoritarian as every other leftist state
Why don't you take all this misplaced energy attacking past socialist projects and instead so something good like organizing or reading theory
You can organize and read theory without supporting Stalinism et al. A boot by any other name still tastes like leather
It's a good thing for the working classes to use the boot against capitalists, landlords, and fascists, actually, and this is precisely what the Zapatistas have done with their state, something they have in common with the USSR. "Stalinism" isn't a thing beyond specific policies of Stalin, the ideology of the USSR is Marxism-Leninism, which was a key inflence guiding Zapatismo.
I'm defending the world's first federation of socialist states from undue slander, because I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and support socialist states like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. that carry over its legacy. The Zapatistas are cool, but small, and their own movement that isn't really Marxist nor anarchist but is their own. They aren't relevant to the current conversation.
Secondly, I already addressed this elsewhere, but the categorization of the USSR as "authoritarian" is meaningless without class analysis. Rather than being the tyranny of capitalists and landlords over the working classes, the USSR used state power against those former ruling classes, as well as fascists that sought to overthrow the socialist system. Any effective, lasting socialist state needs to have the mechanisms to defend itself both internally and externally, something the Zapatistas have in common with the USSR.
The reason socialists need to defend the USSR from Red Scare narratives is because the Red Scare is used as a cudgel against anyone trying to improve the world. The horrifying version that exists purely in imagination is something relentlessly thrown at us. Rather than distancing ourselves from former socialism, we should dispel the slander, because of 2 main reasons:
-
It is entirely unconvincing to paint a purer and purer pucture of a hypothetical socialism free from all of the imagined USSR's sins for those who have not studied it. Why should this time be so far removed from the USSR? Obviously conditions are different, but many struggles faced by the USSR and its real problems are common for any socialist state.
-
Even if we play along with the Red Scare, it will still be used as a cudgel.
That's why it's best to take an honest approach and cede no ground to liberalism and bourgeois historiography. As socialists, we need to tell history from a proletarian perspective, advancing the cause of socialism.
Quibbling over the definition of "authoritarian" is kind of a red flag for a country that invented the term "gulag"
Defending the Soviet Union in this way has the same energy as someone claiming that the Nazis actually did some really good scientific research
Marxists have been discussing the class nature of authority since Marx and Engels themselves, see Marx's Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy and Engels' On Authority. On the whole, soviet prisons and the justice system itself were more progressive than their peers, Mary Stevenson Callcott documented it quite well in Russian Justice. The term "gulag" came from the GULAG administration, and doesn't mean "torture/execution camp" or anything of the sort.
Defending the USSR from undue slander is the only correct path for a socialist to take. We defend the USSR because we defend the achievements of real, existing socialism, and we want to criticize the USSR's shortcomings from an accurate point of view. Any comparisons equating communists to Nazis contributes to Double Genocide Theory, a form of Holocaust trivialization. I'll leave you with a quote:
To place Russian communism on the same moral level with Nazi fascism, because both are totalitarian, is, at best, superficial, in the worse case it is fascism. He who insists on this equality may be a democrat; in truth and in his heart, he is already a fascist, and will surely fight fascism with insincerity and appearance, but with complete hatred only communism.
If you consider yourself a socialist, you owe it to our predecessors to wipe away the sludge cast onto their graves, and carry the mission for socialism forward.
Quibbling over the definition of βauthoritarianβ is kind of a red flag for a country that invented the term βgulagβ
"Pointing out that my epithet is categorically meaningless is a real red flag for a country that had -checks notes- prisons."
Are you just doing spooky Slavic word association at this point?
did you somehow miss subcommandante marcos explaining that the use of force to compel local antogonists to comply was helpful?
Cowbee: brings receipts
You: But they were the Bad Evil Bad Guys, my government and 30,000 movies (not propaganda) told me so!
Doesn't mean they were bad before either. In fact, what you said doesn't mean anything at all.
[removed by mod]
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
Lysenkoism in particular was a mistake of dogmatic interpretations of dialectical materialism, and was discarded as hard proof advanced and disproved its interpretations of things like genetics.
Lysenkoism was a mistake that was corrected. Liberal regimes are not without examples of adopting bad/misguided scientific policies either. The US state for example currently denies climate change and vaccinations.
First 3 on the left and all the things on the right are correct, because the USSR as not communist, but Stalinist.
The USSR was a federation of socialist states. "Stalinism" isn't really a thing, at best you could use it to mean specific policies like Socialism in One Country. Public ownership was the principal aspect of the USSR's economy, and the working classes controlled the state. Rather than committing genocide against Ukrainians, the soviets actually propped up Ukrainian national identity, and added land to Ukraine in their effort to solidify this, as the USSR was a multi-ethnic federation.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
As with many things, its a mixed bag. Socialism was certainly better for many than the feudalism, but to say it was a free society is a stretch.
Stalinism was a real thing. Its what you get from centralization of power in the political upper class. Same effect as under Mao.
Its not those people that brought about that system, its that system that brings about those people. The same thing happens in capitalism, where capital concentrates power and appoints their puppets in government.
Anything that concentrates power is a problem and ends up with things like the Ukrainian genocide and Gaza.
Ukrainian genocide
If you mean the "Holodomor" all I can say is holocaust denial through double genocide theory is still holocaust denial.
If you mean the current war then I don't even have words for how out of touch with reality you must be.
I mean how the USSR inherited the imperialist practices of exploiting and oppressing the provinces to strengthen the centre.
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Belarus. All suffered greatly so the Rus could have power.
Its the same story as in the USA. Native Americans and imported slaves suffered so the elite can make their money.
This is a bunch of idiotic nonsense for one but more importantly does not address what I said at all.
The USSR abolished the imperial system of Tsarist Russia. The soviets then established protections for ethnic minorities, even giving more land to Ukraine in order to solidify their identity. The national question was taken incredibly seriously. It isn't at all the same as the USA, which is a genocidal settler-colony that wiped out indigenous peoples and brought countless slaves over, and to make that comparison and equate them is to minimize the actual, real crimes of the US Empire.
Okay, I have a time machine and am willing to send you back to one of two places. Either you can be a peasant in 1930s Siberia, or you can be a Cherokee in 1870s America. Since both are the same, I assume you'll just be flipping a coin.
There is no such thing as the "political upper class." Bureaucrats do not form their own class, but are instead a subsection of a broader class, in the case of the USSR, the working classes. Socialism in the USSR and PRC brought a tremendous democratization of society, and solidified power in the hands of the working classes as a whole, who are not distinct from the members of the working classes in the government. Stalinism is not a thing, beyond Stalin's specific economic policies. The ideology of the USSR and PRC is Marxism-Leninism.
Further, there is no genocide against Ukrainians, unless you mean the ethnic repressions against native Russians in the Donbass region by Kiev. War is not genocide. The genocide of Palestinians is absolutely genocide as "Israel" is an apartheid regime, but the Russo-Ukrainian war is not a genocide.
[removed by mod]
I'm a communist, I think my support for Marxism made that obvious.
You are not supporting Marxism only, you are throwing some authoritarian Stalinist/Putin propaganda in there.
You can support one and not the other you know.
I'm supporting the world's first federation of socialist states, and accurately describing the Russo-Ukrainian War, both from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. Stalinism does not exist beyond specific socioeconomic policies of Stalin, the ideology of the USSR was Marxism-Leninism. If you want to learn more about Marxism-Leninism, I wrote a basic study guide.
You haven't really backed up any of your own claims or attacked any of mine. You just called my points "propaganda," as though the accusation alone is a point. Please bring a real point, or reconsider your strategy.