Its why they defeated the nazis, who had a 50-100 year industrialization lead when the USSR started doing a command economy. The USSR also ended up liberalizing, especially in its last decade, creating the circumstances for a coup that resulted in balkanization and massively decreased living standards.
And all Eastern European countries experience explosive growth post communism?
The USSR killed 80-ish percent of the nazi troops, and suffered 26 million casualties, mostly civilians exterminated by the nazis. They were mainly responsible for the victory and suffered the heaviest losses, including a lot of the lower level communist organization whose absence lead to the bureaucratic centralization (that Stalin opposed heavily before his death) that let corruption gradually take over the project.
Yeah, when you organize your army based on politics and not on, you know, military capability, you end up sucking at war and need to make it up in numbers. You ignore intelligence of imminent invasion you let hundreds of thousands of troops get encircled and begging the Yankees for resources.
They defeated the Nazis by throwing conscripts into a meat grinder regardless of whether they even had a weapon, and by threatening to shoot them if they tried to retreat.
That’s the nature of Authoritarian regimes. Not very working class of them.
They defeated the Nazis by throwing conscripts into a meat grinder regardless of whether they even had a weapon, and by threatening to shoot them if they tried to retreat.
Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary, it’s a propaganda film. In true fact while the Soviets did have a large number of conscripts and did suffer supply issues early in the war, at no point were they sending under-equipped battalions into the front line to die for no reason, and the thing about shooting those who retreated only applied to officers who ordered a retreat without proper cause (you’ll find that every other army in World War 2 had a similar protocol).
Lots of Authoritarian one party economies are, Hitler’s, China’s, Ghengis Khan’s, Ancient Rome.
You can really make leaps and bounds with forced labour and a Stalinist regime… But I don’t want to live under such a system, nor would I automatically trust how it’s applied.
Weird how the socialist command economies lead to a massive increase in literacy, life expectancy, women’s rights, access to education, doctors per person, decreased infant and maternal mortality, I could go on.
Almost like there is a difference between a capitalist command economy like the nazis did and a socialist command economy. Wonder what the difference between those three word phrases are, hmmmmm 🤔🤔🤔
Gulags were a thing, labor camps have been a thing, vocational education and training centers, have been a thing, north koreas camps have been a thing, siberian labor camps have been a thing, pol pots torture camps have been a thing.
Authoritarian one party systems tend to have political prisoners, and institutions, camps, or prisons where they’re dealt with.
These are things the proletariat and lumpenproletariat (and other classes) get subjected too for political reasons, I’m saying I don’t want that happening. That it’s a bad thing.
No, I dislike all Authoritarian regimes. I dislike single party systems.
We’re discussing systems of the past of course, not possible variations or was a new Socialism moght structure its self.
But the problem is that Capitalism isn’t going down without a fight, and if there’s a fight there will likely be an Authoritarian one party system after, that performs a period of white/red terror, that’s difficult to avoid.
It’s a hard problem for revolutionary forms of Socialism.
Authoritarian central planning sucks…
Workers having shares in companies and or the means of production doesn’t.
The soviet economy was insane(ly good)!
https://youtu.be/Hcl3R-yARX8?si=Z2Us5pkG9a7FBPUw
Well sourced easily digestible video on it.
Is that why they won the cold war? And all Eastern European countries experience explosive growth post communism?
Its why they defeated the nazis, who had a 50-100 year industrialization lead when the USSR started doing a command economy. The USSR also ended up liberalizing, especially in its last decade, creating the circumstances for a coup that resulted in balkanization and massively decreased living standards.
This is counterfactual
I thought a massive international effort defeated the nazis, including strategic bombing, embargos and lend-lease. Weird.
The USSR killed 80-ish percent of the nazi troops, and suffered 26 million casualties, mostly civilians exterminated by the nazis. They were mainly responsible for the victory and suffered the heaviest losses, including a lot of the lower level communist organization whose absence lead to the bureaucratic centralization (that Stalin opposed heavily before his death) that let corruption gradually take over the project.
Yeah, when you organize your army based on politics and not on, you know, military capability, you end up sucking at war and need to make it up in numbers. You ignore intelligence of imminent invasion you let hundreds of thousands of troops get encircled and begging the Yankees for resources.
Consider not learning your ww2 history from pop culture
So, no argument at all? Just a downvote and an ad-hominem? I’m disappointed…
They defeated the Nazis by throwing conscripts into a meat grinder regardless of whether they even had a weapon, and by threatening to shoot them if they tried to retreat.
That’s the nature of Authoritarian regimes. Not very working class of them.
Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary, it’s a propaganda film. In true fact while the Soviets did have a large number of conscripts and did suffer supply issues early in the war, at no point were they sending under-equipped battalions into the front line to die for no reason, and the thing about shooting those who retreated only applied to officers who ordered a retreat without proper cause (you’ll find that every other army in World War 2 had a similar protocol).
Removed by mod
Lots of Authoritarian one party economies are, Hitler’s, China’s, Ghengis Khan’s, Ancient Rome.
You can really make leaps and bounds with forced labour and a Stalinist regime… But I don’t want to live under such a system, nor would I automatically trust how it’s applied.
Here’s some photos of some gulag laborers digging the White Sea to Baltic canal for some extra bread and meat rations: https://allthatsinteresting.com/white-sea-baltic-canal
Insanely “good” economies are often created from poverty, serfdom, slavery, and forced labour. That’s not how I’d define a “good” economy though.
Weird how the socialist command economies lead to a massive increase in literacy, life expectancy, women’s rights, access to education, doctors per person, decreased infant and maternal mortality, I could go on.
Almost like there is a difference between a capitalist command economy like the nazis did and a socialist command economy. Wonder what the difference between those three word phrases are, hmmmmm 🤔🤔🤔
Lol
God I wish
reeducation camps were a thingPolitical prisoners are a thing.
Gulags were a thing, labor camps have been a thing, vocational education and training centers, have been a thing, north koreas camps have been a thing, siberian labor camps have been a thing, pol pots torture camps have been a thing.
Authoritarian one party systems tend to have political prisoners, and institutions, camps, or prisons where they’re dealt with.
These are things the proletariat and lumpenproletariat (and other classes) get subjected too for political reasons, I’m saying I don’t want that happening. That it’s a bad thing.
You aren’t saying anything except bringing up scary terms you heard. Conspiracies are a thing. War profiteers are a thing. El Chupacabra is a thing.
You’re just talking shit without any specific accusations. Just vibes.
You’re free to look up these various systems of political punishment. Just answering 'theyre conspiracy theories ’ isn’t a convincing argument.
You have to win people to your cause if you want your systems to win.
Just to note; Capitalism also has this problem of paying workers the minimum in order to transfer wealth to profit/owners.
You hate it because it defeated the nazis or…?
No, I dislike all Authoritarian regimes. I dislike single party systems.
We’re discussing systems of the past of course, not possible variations or was a new Socialism moght structure its self.
But the problem is that Capitalism isn’t going down without a fight, and if there’s a fight there will likely be an Authoritarian one party system after, that performs a period of white/red terror, that’s difficult to avoid.
It’s a hard problem for revolutionary forms of Socialism.
The one party system is going to perform white and red terrors?
There’s always more than one side in a revolution, and there’s always massacres.