It’s not a story the HistoryMemes comments would tell you

It’s not a story the HistoryMemes comments would tell you


Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 1 time. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/os0fn4) on 2021-07-26 100.0% match. *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "qdatg8", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=qdatg8&sameSub=true&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=92) --- **Scope:** This Sub | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 92% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** 180 | **Searched Images:** 257,367,456 | **Search Time:** 0.29491s


Bro? You telling me one of the most populated countries at the time with vast amounts of untapped raw resources could become super powerful due to an authoritarian party taking over and pushing for modernization of industries and infrastructure could become super powerful? That’s like… never happened, ever. (Which this was going to happen sooner or later as it was a hot button issue at the time)


It is rarer than you think. There was no shortage of authoritarian leaders and modernization efforts in Russia, but nothing ever was very successful until the Soviets came along and realized the key to modernization was educating and empowering the lower classes of society. Same thing happened in China, which also went from feudal to superpower in a very short time under the communists after previous modernizers mostly failed to affect the country's vast peasant population and left many restricting feudal structures intact. The only major county that managed to modernize without communist takeover was Japan, and even there fear for communists (which were pretty popular in Japan) drove a lot of policies. Like them or hate them, but the fact that the communist movements of the 20th century were a massive driving force for modernization and emancipation is undeniable.


I'm pretty sure china became a superpower after already abandoning communism. Unless you consider their rather state-capitlasim leaning economics communist, or you think their backyard steel and famines would be considered a superpower.


China has explicitly not “abandoned” communism. I’m not a Leninist but it is pretty obvious that people who consider the problems under Mao to be pure communism and the growth since Deng to be not really communism after all, are motivated by ideology rather than facts. Also the same people that seem happy to go back to saying China is communist when talking about their suppression of Uighurs etc


Calling China a communist state is like calling North Korea Democratic and a Republic


To be fair, it was communists when it acquire nuke and a seat in the UN security council.


>Same thing happened in China, And it only took 4 million dead of starvation to get there. Progress.


How many death has America done to achieve today’s look? It’s not whataboutism, just, you’re criticizing superpower becoming superpower by sacrificing lives? Which angelic innocent nation are you from?


These are probably the same people who think North Korea is run by cartoon supervillains who daily sacrifice thousands of citizens but forget the US committed practically genocide against the North during the Korean War. Not to mention if you were to realistically account for the deaths caused by capitalist economies like treatable disease/illness or poverty, it would vastly succeed any caused by all communist countries combined. Even then most of the statistics from things like “the Black Book of Communism” rely on faulty/lazy data and overestimation.


Ehh every country has dirt look at the US and exterminating Indians and enslaving black prob have higher death tolls than w.e China did to get out of a feudal society


The US, the UK, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, HK, Singapur, Israel, most of Western Europe including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Swizertland, Spain, Italy, Austria, even Chile and Uruguay there in South America modernized with much higher standards of living thanks to capitalism. In fact China grew after the Economic Reform liberalization, you know that as you know the only remaining socialist nations out there are probably just Cuba and Best Korea. You just have to fall in the fallacy that geopolitical power means somehow development, although soviets, cubans, continental Chinese, North Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese all of them starved and suffered brutal repression during last century.


NK is not even socialist...at least anymore.


Western Europe modernized thanks to colonialism?


>There was no shortage of authoritarian leaders and modernization efforts in Russia, but nothing ever was very successful until the Soviets came along and realized the key to modernization was slaughtering anyone that complained about having their rights and freedoms taken away. Ftfy


All this were bound to happen simply because the technology had been made available by capitalist countries. The difference is just achieving it much sooner and doing it without killing millions of people, but instead raising living standards massively.


In all fairness, the Soviet Union isn’t a failure because it was communist. It’s a failure because it collapsed because communism is a shit system. Slight difference


I don't want to say that authoritarian communism is a good system (because it isn't), but the logic is flawed here. Countless capitalist regimes have collapsed over the past century. Does that mean that capitalism is a shit system? I don't think so since there are plenty of countries for which capitalism has worked. On the same note there are currently still successful communist regimes. It is almost as if a country's success or failure depends on factors other than its ideological system.


The USSR was specifically top-down communism. They had no problems with capital goods or military materiel; but production of consumer goods left MUCH to be desired. And they STRICTLY limited imports of goods they could not or would not produce. This left the citizenry effectively destitute while there was no reason for them to be so.


People do not know it was the most austere economy in order to invest in means and maintain economic growth. So consumption levels were very poor by Western standards. Also their growth was extensive, not intensive (innovation), that's the reason for their stagnation during the 70's and 80's.


>So consumption levels were very poor by Western standards. They were very poor by ANY standards. Rations on basic needs such as clothing are absurd for any modernized economy over the last hundred years.


Define "successful communist regimes" cuz I don't know any, unless you mean the not so communist china.


There is no Easter bunny, there is no Tooth Fairy and there is Communism with Chinese characteristics


This is utterly false. Any bunny born during Easter is by definition an Easter bunny.


The Party has spoken. You shall now go to a re education camp. There are no Easter bunnies


If it falls its communist if it works its not so communist nice logic


I mean, Vietnam seems to be doing okay-ish, with their Ho Chi Minh Thought. At least they don't seem to be collapsing


>Does that mean that capitalism is a shit system Yes


The worst thing ever is when you tell this to a capitalist and all they can say is, "it's better than the alternative"


Come up with a better alternative lmao


Market Socialism would be that better system, or Super Capitalism for people whose brains turn off as soon as they hear the word socialism. You have a market economy with some decommodification similar to modern social democracies, plus an economy based around democratic worker co-ops instead of the oligarchic or autocratic traditionally owned firms that are more common today.


regulated capitalism


A balance. Like what most European nations do. They're both for awful on their own, so mix and match until something works


That's still capitalism tho.


Many European nations are *extremely* capitalist. They also happen to have welfare. That's not a mixed economy, that's a welfare state.


You looky here random citizen, I was told that's socialism.


That's capitalism too. It works pretty well.


Capitalism =/= free market fetishism, much as free market fetishists want to pretend that it is


but muh laissez faire


Doesn't Capitalism as a blank term have nothing to do with government or otherwise intervention? Like isn't it by definition just a system and anything else added on is changing the systems definition. So free market fetishist are just kinda correct?


To clarify, I mean that free market fetishism is not SYNONYMOUS with capitalism. It's perfectly possible to be fully capitalist and still have a strong social safety net, for essentially the reasons you describe


Social democracies (the system they have in the scandi countries) are propped up on the back of cheap, exploitative labour from 3rd world countries and the workers who live there. Not only are they reliant on the cheap resources and products they can get from these countries but they are also reliant on the immigrants that leave them for a better life in order to have a constant pool of workers to keep their rapidly ageing populations afloat. Mixed economies are "good" insofar as they are better than good ol' US of A style capitalism and they certainly work as intended but it is only sustainable if they make sure the poor countries stay poor.


It is tho


That's not my fucking point. My point is we need to better capitalism. Not sit and watch people starve and freeze to death while 1% of the world has more money than the other 99%. I'm not trying to institute communism. I'm trying to socialize capitalism.


That is true, but as someone who has seen both and can still see the lasting effects of communism I just can't say it's anywhere near as viable as people make it out to be


Yeah communism is too idealistic to work.


>Does that mean that capitalism is a shit system? Yes, but that's beside the point.


Again no, it failed because it had a line of despots authoritarian leaders. Not saying Trotsky would have fix it. Also you know, they kinda had to fight a world war against a fascist state which was more destabilizing than to other nations. Plus if you look at the objective information, expect the near the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90s, the Soviet Union stayed on par if not better than the US in most regards. It also had to fight the entirety of global capital which was still doing colonialism for most of the Cold War. TLDR: It wasn’t a fair fight for communist system because the entirely of capitalism came to destroy it


Lol what? ~76% of people voted to keep the USSR. People were eating better than Americans in the 80s. The quality of life fell MASSIVELY when they went capitalist.


Lmao the communism understander™️ has logged on Edit: posts on PCM and has shit takes, goes together like chocolate and peanut butter


Sorry, deleted my last comment accidentally. There's a reason Canada has higher GDP despite haver 3x less people in it.


To be honest Russia's swift rise to power was pretty impressive but it isn't the most ethical method I have seen.


A question too serious for that comment thread : Does a system needs to be ethical to be successfull ?


Definitely not, but I will prefer barely working ethical system to successful unethical system. Also this entirely depends on your ethics, as they are not set in stone.


I wouldn't say so.


>Does a system needs to be ethical to be successfull ? For some reason successful countries kind of ethical. Unethical (like really unethical on scale of hitler or ussr) countries quick raise, quick fail.


They also got a decent start due to basically inheriting the Russian Empire.


I don't know man, WW1 era Tsarist Russia doesn't seem like a decent start, that's like starting off as the Western Roman Empire in total war.


Damn you beat me to it by less than 5 seconds smh (your comment literally says "just now" lmao). But you're right, the Russian Empire was in complete upheaval and turmoil. Russia had their ass handed to them in back-to-back major wars. Food and fuel shortages. Widespread unrest and strikes among the peasants. The February and October Revolutions which overthrew the monarchy and plunged the country into the 5 year civil war that established the Lenin's Communists as the new leaders of Russia. It was utter chaos. I don't think the guy you replied to is exactly sure of what he's talking about here. Maybe he saw "empire" attached to Russia and decided it meant they were sitting pretty?


> Maybe he saw "empire" attached to Russia and decided it meant they were sitting pretty? Same for Turk empire, Austrian empire, and less for German empire. So Russian empire was as bad as the rest of europe.


Tsarist Russia was a major power, with the biggest population in Europe and a modernizing economy. They crushed the Austro-Hungarians in World War 1, who had to baled out by the Germans. Corruption and incompetence were common in the government, but that doesn't change the fact that it was one of the top two powers on the European continent at the time.


It sucked compared to the other Empires, but it was still an empire. They weren't exactly starting from the medieval stage the way tankies like to imply.


Like the op here seems to be doing


no industrial development was ethical. like ever. they had kids working 16 hours in mines in england.


isn’t every good economy built on bones? US used slaves, western europeans used colonies, and number of people that died because of communist regime doesn’t stand anything close to number of people which died in colonies of western empires


Of course the ussr had massive success compared to a fucking *feudalist monarchy* that literally *restricted industrialism* and *enslaved like 85%+ of the population*. That's not really a flex.


That’s the important point. One could even argue things got better for many citizens of the Soviet Union, but we’re comparing it to the Russian empire! There’s basically no way anyone could loose this comparison. It’s much more debatable if the USSR was a success when we compare it to pretty much any other European nation. Czechoslovakia is an interesting example, since it went from a more or less industrialised democracy to a soviet puppet state. Being better than feudalism is hardly proof that a system works.


>a more or less industrialised democracy That's an understatement. Czechoslovakia inherited the vast majority of Austria-Hungary's industry, which made them the 6th(?) most industrialised country in the world at the time.


It probably is. Honestly I just thought about my own ancestors that lived in a pretty rural region back then. But that obviously wasn’t necessarily true for everyone. My own biases influenced me here; Czechoslovakia was a modern state like many others at the time.


Well that’s not entirely a fair representation of tsarist Russia. They did make efforts to reform and industrialization was well on its way by the turn of the century. (Of course, that was ramped up a lot during the USSR.) Where else do you think the Bolsheviks got their support from, if notfrom the urban proletariat?


Their efforts at modernization were pretty laughable though. Especially since it failed to address the underlying power structures and imbalance between social groups in Russia that was the primary cause for the country's feudal backwardness. The Bolsheviks got support from all layers of society, primarily from the proletariat but they also had widespread support among the military classes, the peasantry, intellectuals and even more than a few discontented nobles.


yeah, and in 1921 bolsheviks sent 200+ of those "intellectuals" into exile people may believe beautiful words about "equality" and "brotherhood" but building a communist regime on practice requires a massive amount of violence, so that support ended very shortly.


Rasputin should've been king. I don't think he would've been a good leader but that sex-crazed immortal on drugs would've made a better story fighting Nazis than what we got in this boring timeline.


Yep, because the only people who called the USSR an oppressive failed state are just capitalist shills like George Orwell /s


literally 1984


Possibly the first time this statement has been unironically correct


This but unironically


I very rarely meet people who lived in the SU and say they loved the time. They mostly don't differentiate between capitalism and communism but leader (Stalin/Lenin)


My brothers ex-gf's mother was from the USSR and left after it all came down. She does not paint a very nice view of it.


I know a lot. Most of them have romantic view on USSR. There are many reasons they provide: First of all: that was their childhood and people always tempt to remember only good from childhood. Then, the simplicity of life: you just work and government supplies you with good and free medicine and education. To have a flat you don't need tons of money: you just have a queue that soon or later provide you with one. Of course they don't think about freedom, or about the number of goods in the store. Or about many-many more terrible things related to political system. It's important for modern generations, but not for them.


I know people from post-Soviet countries and one thing most of them miss is that the SU provided you with a place to work and a place to live. Often it wasn't a dream job and sometimes you had to move far away from your family but like you said, people had different priorities and seeing how high the cost of living in a lot of western countries is today, to the point where it prevents you from owning any luxuries anyway, this is a thing they often look back to cause it gave some kind of security.


Nope at the childhood argument. As a person whose parents lived in a fascist government, I tell you, they hated how the country was before democracy arrived


Spain? Or what country did your parents grow up if I might ask?




I mean what did they get out of the fall of the Soviet Union? They traded an authoritarian regime that was a super power for an authoritarian regime with less social safety nets and a weaker international presence. They got pizza hut and tourists in exchange for national prestige and quality of life. If Russia had become a prosperous democracy then it's a different discussion, but it's hard to see what Russians got out of the end of the Soviet Union


Ask Estonians what they got. They got rid of commies and built a better society. Russia's outcome was a bit different: we did not "trade" one bad regime for another. The same bureaucrats from communist party took control of the wealth establishing an oligarchic plutocracy. Privatization process was rigged af. This led to current situation: an ex-kgb old man who doesn't even use internet living in his fantasy world where he sees himself as a savior of Russia oppreses Russian people and annexes territories


Estonia is also full of Nazis, so no wonder they don't like the USSR.


Yeltsin, his buddies, and the USA benefited from it, and that’s the reason it was dissolved. People in most of the Soviet Republics [overwhelmingly supported the preservation of the USSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum).


>Of course they don't think about freedom, or about the number of goods in the store. Or about many-many more terrible things related to political system. It's important for modern generations, but not for them. ‘Number of goods in the store’ is such a stupid way to measure success of a society. Many of the post-Soviet countries have worse economy and quality of life than they did 50 years ago. Can you blame people for being nostalgic? Sure, they have ‘freedom’ now, but they can’t afford to buy most of those things at the store. Great trade. My grandfather is a refugee from Czechoslovakia. He’s in his 90s. He hates communism with a passion and will until his dying breath, but even he admits that the government is more corrupt now and does less for the people. His family’s farm was forcibly collectivised and when communism ended they thought they would get it back, but the land was just sold to a big German agribusiness and they were kicked off. They had to move to the city where apartments now cost 10 times as much. Great freedom. Stalin said it well: “It is difficult for me to imagine what ‘personal freedom’ is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.”


Well said.


90s in Czech Republic (my childhood) were radical! Would I go there again? God no. Oh god please no.


Well my Dad and his relatives which were sent away from Lithuania to Siberia have less... positive opinions about the topic to say lightly.


My country is in a bigger shit than it was under the USSR. Ppl miss that system. Altough ppl call our leadership the orange communist, so whatever.


I would consider the genocides, mass starvation and collapse after only 69 years of existence to be failures


Yeah, people think being superpower is success, I mean yeah success in books and war, but it's the same nation that traded some of her power for McDonald.


I would consider lack of nuance when discussing the USSR a failure too


At least they did the funny number.


Imagine believing the Soviet Union was great


Some russians think so, not surprising as they had it not that bad. You see the Soviets imported everything from countries like East Germany and Poland (People's Republic of Poland bsck then)


That happens in every country that had a dictator, some people in mine say that during that time the country was better. In some aspects I agree in terms of the budget even with war going on. But people satrving and beign tortured and no freedom its just plain wrong. It might not be perfect now but freedom is priceless


For many struggling economies, it's probably a faster way to industrialize than the other method


There are always people thinking any national state is not despicable. Be it the SU, the USA, China, or literally any country. Some people don't even see issues within the power of multinational corporations. Education is really important.


Pretty sure the USSR was a failure. You know.. because it failed?


Yeah it was pretty much doomed from the start, the age of monarchism was over by the end of ww1 and prolonging it just wasn’t gonna work when there were plenty of Democratic, free powers to emigrate to


if it was so good why wasnt there a USSR 2?


Yet, remember the Simpsons predicted it so it might happen /s


Well, Germany post WW I had quite the upswing as well I guess.


At the turn of the 1900's the Russia Empire was projected to outclass The German and French Empire by 1930. The Russian Empire was quickly becoming industrialized, and it was one of the main strategic reasons the Germans were okay with a war with the Russians, so they could delay or halt Russian modernization. Every world leader in the early 1900's knew Russia was a economic and military behemoth who had yet to wake, which is why every 2 front war plan the Germans drew up had them knock out France first, then focus on the Russian. By every metric the Russian Empire would have industrialized faster than the USSR, and with 20/20 hindsight we can confidently say socially not much would have changed if the Empire stayed. Russia became a superpower so fast because they were a gigantic country with immense natural resources and population, who had yet to fully industrialize. Every country that industrialized has seen exponential growth like the USSR, China is doing the same thing under a proto-fascist regime. Doesn't mean we should follow in their footstep of genocide, authoritarianism, and revanchist claims.


I am glad to see someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to the Russian Empire. It really was on its way to becoming an industrial superpower, with vast resources and potential only outclassed by the USA. It just had the misfortune of ending up in one of the bloodiest wars in human history whilst playing catch-up with every other combatant. After all, the war also lead to the disintegration of many of the great empires of the world who were ahead of Russia.


It’s a failure because they killed tens of millions of their own people with purges, starvation and gulags, then degenerated into a dysfunctional, inefficient bureaucracy in the postwar decades, lost the faith of the people and collapsed as a state. In the case of the gulags there was a lot of torture too. Every country modernises eventually. That doesn’t excuse anything. I’m sure most people who understand this didn’t learn about it from reddit comments as you accuse.


By that defintion every system is a failrule.


You know what's really fucked up though? For all its MANY deadly faults the Soviet Union was probably still an improvement for most people over the failed regime that preceded it (and Nationalist/Warlord China), people fought to build it for a reason


Sorry, I consider the USSR a failure because I got my views from history books.


Well this is a fucking stupid meme. Do Nazi germany next, I hear they were pretty backwards pre hitler.


Yes, waimar Germany was a feudal country with backwards industry controled by foreign capitalists and became a super power in 40 years, this is the stupidest argument i've heard yet, germany was Always a significant power since the fall of the roman empire.


Well, the opposite is true - the Weimar Republic was one of the most progressive countries on earth, economy was of course a lot of ups and downs, but the important thing is Germany was already industrialized pre Hitler - Russia was a feudal, agrarian country with industry and structured of the 19th and even 18th century pre SU.


Feudal? *Feudal?* And ffs, what do you mean they became a superpower, as if Russia hadn't already been one for the past 200 years?


A pretty puny one though.


200 years? I wouldn't say Russia was much of a superpower before the Amur annexation, allowing them to project power into the pacific


> feudal nation Dude just look up the goddamn numbers for Russian Empire in the beginning of XX century. We were building more kms of railroads a year than anyone else. Percentage of citizens able to read was among the highest in Europe. Most of the factories that commies claim to be built in stalin's era are just upgraded (with money made by selling a lot of wheat taken from farmers which lead to a mass hunger known as Holodomor) old factories from back then. etc etc etc And yes, USSR was a failure. Forcing farmers into labour, disarming citizens, putting hundreds of thousands people into gulags, almost losing a war (eastern frontier was somehow won despite stalin's terrible management. I guess our people have a trait to achieve victories even when led by morons. help from allies was also very important), destroying economy, and then transitioning into a third world country ran by an ex-KGB dwarf — isn't that a failure? (well, trying to use marx's fairy-tale book as a guide can't be successful by design lmao) btw, Peter the Great became emperor (and Russia became an empire) on this exact day 300 yrs ago. And you freaking call the great country it developed into through two centuries a "feudal nation".


Great comment, very spicy


Yeah, it WAS a failure. That's why it doesn't exist anymore.


Would you call the Roman Empire a failure?


The roman empire existed for more than a 1000 years and fell because of foreign invasions, the soviet union existed for 74 years and collapsed on it’s own weight


probably not, the roman empire existed for an impressively long time, not the case for the soviet union.


You can't say a system was a failure simply because it doesn't exist anymore.


Can tankies get the fuck out of this sub. Seriously


The fact that this post has 2.5k upvotes as of now is quite concerning


ok tankie


good comeback, very good rebuttals


The USSR was a failure because they violated human rights. Because everything they preached about improving the lives of the working class didn't come true. A nation is not successful by how much money in generates for the ruling class.


By that metric any single country on earth is a failure


There are less failing and more failing countries


The difference is other countries changed. While I don’t believe countries like the USA or Germany, for example, to be perfect they have for the most part moved on and respect human rights, at least in their own countries. The USSR never did this. From 1922-1985 they were always violating the human rights of both their people and those of the Eastern block.


> A nation is not successful by how much money it generates for the ruling class Boy do I have some bad news for you about capitalism


I mean, the nation literally collapsed and doesn’t exist anymore and it lasted less than 100 years. That’s pretty much the definition of failure.


If I could kill half of the planet and enslave otber half with murder robots I could achieve WORLD PEACE. I know, no need to thank me. No one has done it before. Point: If you are willing to do anything to achieve what you want on the backs of others, you might actually do it.


The backstory to World War One is basically that the Russian Empire (sorry, "feudal nation") was becoming a significant geostrategic threat to the British Empire and the UK went about a massive, multi-year diplomatic and military project to contain that threat, and the resulting web of alliances and counter-alliances turned continental Europe into a Jenga tower of potential military conflict. So this meme is pretty dumb - the Soviet Union became a major industrial power because Russia was already a major geopolitical power and they took it over. If the October Revolution had never taken place, odds are that Russia would still have become a major global power. It had either within or close to its borders a lot of natural resources which were and are very valuable in an industrial economy, a large population, and some very strong natural defences to draw on. What's more surprising is that it almost didn't become a major power because of Stalin's purges and the extent to which they weakened the Soviet Union militarily in the build-up to Operation Barbarossa


This kinda ignores the fact that Russia was a superpower before and becoming the Soviet Union actually put a massive dent into the road to becoming a superpower. To put a really dumb comparison - every guy managing the German Bundesligas Advertisement Contracts will be a success even if he is a Moron because he works with great raw material. Thats the Russian Story - becoming a superpower as russia in the 20th century was easy and probably tells you nothing interesting.


Thank you for this meme! I'll go tell my parents and grandparents that they're soy boyz who got their hatred for the soviet regime from memes on reddit and they should just get rekt and forgor all their murdered relatives and friends. You are one based pickle OP!


Only killed 40 million people to do it


“Communism gud, shut up”


40 million is **double** what even *The Black Book of Communism* - not exactly considered reputable scholarship - estimates for the number of people killed in the USSR.* Way to prove OP correct about people on this sub not having the faintest idea when it comes to history. *a number which includes millions of people who died in the USSR during the Nazi invasion


I will be surprise if you found me state that wasnt found on the death of millions


Here is a none exhaustive list of country not found on the death of millions : Nepal Bhutan Kazakhstan Usbekistan Turkmenistan Finland Sweden Norway Island Tunisia Cuba Estonia Latvia Czech republic Denmark And it goes on


All superpowers, of course.


Tell me you don't know history without telling me you don't know history.


Communism kills the population who practices it, while capitalism kills the population who the powerful choose. Let me remind you that millions of people from india died because the British considered the famine part of the free market and refused to aid the starving people because of profit. And it comes from someone who hates communism.


ok tankie but who asked, go buy some bread first if you can afford it


I feel like the Soviet union was a failure more because of what they did to their own people rather than their economic/military progress.


The Soviet Union WAS a failure you dumbass tankie, just like Nazi Germany and the Confederacy


If a capitalist nation had the same success the USSR or China had/has, it would be again and again brought up as an argument for capitalism. Be it lifting millions out of poverty, increasing its people's quality of life, food security (yes both nations had famines. But both nations oversaw the end of famine in their country, whilst Tsarist Russia and the RoC and imperial China never stopped their famines), awesome healthcare, skyrocketing literacy rates, dropping child mortality rates, increasing life expectancy and much much more. But because it's socialism all those things are forgotten and everyone focuses on problems the nation had early on.


>If a capitalist nation had the same success the USSR or China had/has Germany?


Germany is an nice example that being completely ruined and having democracy afterwards is much better than 40 years of communism. The east part of Germany is still not being on the level of west 30 years ago.


Google "Marshall Plan".


It never has been. The region that is now known as East Germany has always been less developed than the rest of the country. Most of the German industry is located in the Ruhr, in West Germany. The BRD was also twice as large and twice as populated as the DDR, and also had a ton of money poured into it by the Western Allies after WW2. It is unsurprising that it developed more. Given these circumstances, what the DDR managed to achieve is very impressive.


Kinda helps when your allies are sympathetic to Nazis and you control the Ruhr


Germany went from being pretty highly developed at its formation to superpower. China and the USSR went from feudalism and the century of Humiliation to highly developed and powerful nation. That's not the same


How about South Korea or Japan. How about Finland?


Before the war, Korea was a Japanese colony, where the native population was basically treated similarly to native Americans. After WWII South Korea had an authoritarian regime and had lower food security, quality of life, and education compared to North Korea right up until the late 80, if I am not mistaken. USSR and Chine sponsored North Korea very generously, and soviet fertilizers basically saved soil-poor north from starvation. However, today's situation up North is quite grim, to say the least. Japan had massive unemployment issues after the war but was fairly industrialized even before WWI since it had a lot of American capital and tech. After WWII it became a base of operations of the US military and fleet, thus requiring Americans to put money into the country to accommodate their military personnel, especially right before Korean War and later Vietnam. This helped Japan tremendously. After the oil crisis of the 70s Japanese cars started to become more prominent in the US, since they were cheaper to operate. The rise of high-tech zaibatsu provided technology and an economic boom (which was proven to be a bubble in the 90s). Finland was part of the Russian Empire before the Revolution and had industry since then. Plus having an exit to the Baltic sea promoted trade and shipbuilding, which requires many other industries too. Finland was in a far better position after being granted independence than, for instance, Kazakhstan, which was industrialized only before and during WWII. Finland was on the losing side of WWII it was quite heavily persecuted, but reparations were reduced by the soviets by quarter and Finland actually made recovery very fast, due to trade and cooperation with USSR, even though Finns did not enter the Warsaw pact. Mainly, focus on industry and high-tech helped with economic growth. Strangely enough, it was all made under the rule of social democrats and communists and more conservative parties became more prominent in the latter half of the XXth century.


Germany went from completely ruined post-war (2) to superpower.


Oh ok, I thought you meant from its formation to the first world war. Yes it became a powerful nation again, however, it had an easier time doing so, not having to focus on its citizens education, which was already good, like teaching it's farmers how to use tractors and similar equipment once they imported that. Additionally, Germany received a lot of outside help and wasnt attacked by anyone, while the USSR shouldered the cost of two world wars being fought on its territory and China shouldered the cost of one.


>Be it lifting millions out of poverty, increasing its people's quality of life, food security ... awesome healthcare, skyrocketing literacy rates, dropping child mortality rates, increasing life expectancy and much much more You just described most Western and Central European countries, which managed (and manage) to do so under that horrible terrible capitalism you so hate. And without famines, gulags, ethnical purges, being technologically behind its opponents, with better quality of life etc etc Whenever someone praises USSR over capitalist West, I have simple question: Despite propaganda and lack of information countless people risked their lives and many even died to leave that"workers paradise". Yet I don't seem to recall opposite. People leaving for USSR en masse.


And all it cost was a couple hundred million dead - bargain.


Did cost the same for capitalism, how many Africans, Indians and Chinese people died for capitalism to succeed? In India, more than 35 million died to the famines caused by the British, we also have the whole slavery thing, the opium wars and much more


I think you’ll find it was at least 8 billion dead




Eh! Central and western European countries after WW2 (Even though there was foreign help in that case)? Japan? South Korea?


If a capitalist country had the success rate of the Soviet Union, communists wouldn’t shut the the hell up about what a rancid totalitarian shithole it was.


Oh god the tankies are coming


Ey, it only took like 50 million dead people to do it, pretty quick and efficient if I do say so myself


They had to cut corners like safety and food for ukraine


It's hard in my opinion to say if an ideology is an absolute success or failure. However the application of it can be refered as the former or the latter. However, people tend to look at the whole USSR saying it was just shit. Like dudes, that's overlooking the complexity and the numerous evolutions. Some paople hates it and some loves it but I do believe the collapse of the USSR came mostly from the Brejnev era, not from before... after that, the oligarchic system that was taking place within the Soviet suprem literally gave cancer to the country. I'm not saying it was a huge success either of course, but I do believe that USSR's history is a bit more complicated than just "It shows how communism/socialism is shit"




You know that even the backwards Russian Empire was a great power. With that big of a landmass, population and abundance of resources it's nearly guaranteed to reach that status. This fact does not mean the Soviet Union's way of government was great or helped produce this great power status.


You cant just take the militay and political power into perspective and then say whether or not a country or a government was succesful or not. So many more aspects of a country are to be considered. Sure the USSR was a superpower, but it also failed to provide basic human rights for many of its people, some of which had a higher quality of live before their country became part of the eastern block. It also only became powerful by silencing minorites and critics alike. So yes the USSR was powerful, but this power was unrightfully claimed and that very power was its downfall once it got in the hands of the people. In my book the USSR was the very definition of a failure. Part of my family lived in East Germany before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and the eastern parts of Germany still suffer under the economical consequences of the USSR.


\*Grabs popcorn and soda\* \*scrolls down the comments\* oh boy here we go


I mean if you look into it, Tsarist Russia would've industrialised anyway and at a far greater pace. The communist revolution stunted Russia more than anything else


1914 Russia was a major industrial power. Still far from its maximum potential, maybe, lagging behind Germany/Britain/France, definitely, but it wasn't feudal.


Ah yes, Western anti-communist propoganda


Nah, I know the user was a failure because I had a history teacher who lived through its fall. The problem was they stopped suppressing the news and education, meaning people got smart enough to realize the reds sucked ass... at least, where she lived.


Yes, the USSR was a gigantic failure.


its true but at what cost?


Lmao, a 3 hours old account is going to teach us on communism


I mean, look at the USSR today, its shit.


Russia wasn't a "feudal nation" by the time of the Revolution and in fact one of the biggest criticisms of the Bolsheviks comes from the idea that it would've probably become industrialized just fine without all the bloodshed and drastic measures.


I kinda study history and i agree with r/historymemes. Ussr was fail.


You don't need HistoryMemes to know the Soviet Union was a failure, all you need is an up to date world map


You could also say that germany went from flat broke weimar republic to a major military power house in about 10 years, The way both of the nations got so strong wasn't so ethical


Ah, a Tankie


Wait, how is it not a failure?


Well, tsar Russia was heading there. Ask pre ww1 Germany, they sensed the eastern giant waking before anyone else.


This is a lukewarm take. "Went from feudal nation to super power in 40 years", very true and somewhat impressive. But take into account the cost of it, and the shine wears off. Most countries in Europe managed to go from feudalism to petty-capitalism to industrialisation without the gulags or repressive government. Sure, the Soviet Union accomplished it in unexpected and unprecedented time, but if we judge countries solely on that, we should all become proto-fascists like China, and enslave our population and worship the god that is GDP growth. It is also worth pointing out that China has seen it's greatest growth and greatest prosperity by ditching the system that the Soviet Union used, and instead applying market principles. So, whilst maybe we should be nuanced about the Soviet Union, to call it a resounding success, or a good example of how to run a country, is by far an act of ignorance of the human suffering, and better alternatives that exist.


Holodomor. That is all.


Feudal to superpower in 40 but then collapsed 50 years afterwards. Wouldn't that constitute as failure?


Oh I don't need Reddit to hate Soviet Union. I only need like 20.000 Polish Officers and Inteligentsia killed in Katyn. Countless more Poles persecuted and sent to Gulags and so on.


Is it still there? No? It failed.


It's a failure because they commited genocide and fall apart.


Another day, another stupid western tankie praises the "prison of peoples" on reddit without knowing a single thing about living in it.


Having lived in the USSR, I assure you: it was a complete failure.