Here’s a pretty good debunking:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-we-will-bury-you-without-firing-a-shot.942/
This is misinformation and a fake quote. What he actually said on that day was:
About the capitalist states, it doesn’t depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations, and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
“We will bury you,” was a poor translation. What he meant (which is pretty clear from context) was more like, “We will outlast you,” or “We will be there at your funeral.” He never said anything about “We will take down America without firing a shot” or “We will bury America from within” (how do you “bury someone from within,” anyway?).
Khuschev’s strategy towards the West was called, “peaceful coexistence,” the concept being that it wasn’t necessary to take active steps towards overthrowing Western governments, instead seeking to establish an ammenable working relationship, the belief being that the Soviet system would win out in time while the capitalist system would eventually decay and the proletariat of Western nations would eventually radicalize and rise up on their own. You can say that this wasn’t their real belief or whatever, but it was a major contributing factor towards the Sino-Soviet split, and they were willing to stand by that line to the point of alienating other communist countries.
But regardless of whether you agree with that interpretation or not, this quote isn’t just misinterpreting the quote, it’s outright lying about what was said.
Odd choice to go with a fake quote on the real date of Khrushchev’s probably most famous line about “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” which is referencing the communist manifesto
The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Arguably “from within” but not anything Khrushchev or obviously Putin does, it’s capitalism being a self-destructive loop.
There has probably been a bond like cabal of oligarchs that never stopped
Yes correct the only people who had enough money to scoop up entire industries in the post soviet crisis were unsurprisingly the exact people who had been successfully bleeding the soviet system dry.
People like to say the Soviet Union was inefficient and that’s why they failed and communism is bad.
Those people really don’t like to acknowledge that capitalist countries instantly started a war on every front possible and attacked the Soviet Union since its inception.
Because Capitalists will always choose to force monopolies instead of allow competition to threaten them. And that goes for monopolies of ideas as well.
Yes and also central planning seems inherently bad to me. If you’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to your boss’s boss’s boss describe what they think you do, it’s like a game of telephone. There’s a famous example of a laundromat that replaced its machines one year and wound up with a bunch of scrap metal so central planning factors this into the economy and now the laundromat is buying scrap metal on the black market to fill quotas. Just absolute worm brained shit because the people higher up in the hierarchy don’t know shit about how to run a laundromat.
It all depends on what you’re trying to do. Like, say we’re talking about cars. With competing private companies, you can have one company that specializes in making the safest models, another that makes the fastest, and a third that makes the most fuel efficient. Different people have different preferences, so having more options makes sense, and cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool in looking at what features to cut or what research to invest in (provided you have enough regulation to prevent them from cutting out safety and turning the roads into Mad Max).
But suppose what you’re trying to do is build a bridge. Well, the bridge pretty much just needs to do one thing, stay up. You don’t need three different bridge companies building three different bridges in the same place trying to coner different demographics. You don’t need the bridge to make a profit through tolls in order to pay for itself. You just need it to stay up. In cases like this, central/state planning makes a lot more sense.
Certain industries are “natural monopolies,” meaning that redundancy is either impossible or extremely inefficient. An example of this is cable. It usually doesn’t make sense for two different cable companies build their own whole infrastructure in the same place, and so most places end up stuck with a single choice. In that case, it’s better for the industry to be state run, because then there is at least some mechanism for consumer feedback through the government, compared to a corporation with a monopoly that will just do whatever it wants.
There are reasons why large corporations have become such a large part of the economy, and part of it is that it’s often more efficient to coordinate things on a larger scale. Sears is a famous example that tried to do things differently. They hired a libertarian CEO who hated the centralized organization of the company and restructured it to have individual chains and departments competing with each other instead of coordinating. It was an unmitigated disaster. It’s just a matter of economics of scale.
Personally, I think a mixed economy makes a lot of sense so that the best models can be applied on a case-by-case basis, provided that corporations can be kept in line and prevented from doing regulatory capture. That’s why I’m a fan of China’s model. “It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.”
