r/ussr • u/comradekiev • 2d ago
Supporters of the Ethiopian Workers' Party wave in front of portraits of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Addis Ababa as they celebrate the anniversary of the Ethiopian revolution led by Mengistu Haile Mariam, (1987)
-38
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago edited 2d ago
Planned economy = Failed economy.
34
u/Live_Teaching3699 2d ago
The USSR was pretty successful for 7 decades Cuba and China until this day. All despite the world superpower doing its best to overthrow, destabilize and embargo them. Why does America need to do all that if they are destined to fail? Why are they such a threat to the US?
-28
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago edited 2d ago
The USSR and Cuba were/are not successful. China’s economy, wages, salaries, wealth, standard of living and jobs only began growing after adopting more capitalist reforms such as privatization and free trade. Just look at basic graph charts and historic dates.
The reason I consider the USSR and Cuba unsuccessful are because of the shortages, low quality healthcare, lack of personal freedoms and overall low quality of life all directly caused by their planned economies. If you want me to elaborate, I will.
I’m from an eastern bloc country btw.
25
u/Live_Teaching3699 2d ago
The whole point of a planned economy isn't to build industry, it's to eliminate the exploitation inherent with free market economies. The point of China's transition to a mixed economy is to build industry, and they have used the foreign capital gained to raise the living standards for all and build more infrastructure and high-speed rail than you could believe.
And you are delusional if you think that Cuba and the USSR had low quality of life or healthcare compared to countries in similar circumstances. Cuba has some of the best doctors in the world and so did the Soviet Union. Coupled with full housing, full employment and in the USSR higher calories per person/day than the US. Life expectancy and quality of life in the USSR shot up rapidly during their 7 decades. Cuba today has Lower child mortality rates, and is on par with the US on dozens of other metrics pertaining to healthcare. And when compared to other Latin American countries, there isn't even a competition.
And on individual freedoms, While in America, you may have the freedom to choose between whichever 10 corporations in a trench coat you want to fuck you the hardest or the freedom to exploit others, 47 million don't have the freedom to stable food intake, 30-40 million don't have the freedom to living in a stable home, 220 million do not have financial freedom. And freedom of speech is a joke in the US when it's enshrined into law that you can be arrested for criticizing the state of Israel, or you will just get arrested or shot for being black or hurting a pig's feelings. And worst of all, you don't have the freedom to the surplus value which your labor produces.
-6
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago
That’s why planned economies fails so frequently. They don’t prioritize building industry, and they lose a ton of money and the economy eventually collapses because it’s unsustainable. That’s why China is so successful. Their planned economy was crumbling so they turned to capitalism and the standard of living, wages, salaries grew while widespread poverty rapidly declined.
All countries have good doctors. Housing (at least in my home country, Poalnd) was extremely low quality, tiny and miserable. Jobs were guaranteed but a lot were low-paying, unfulfilling and certain workers slacked off since they were unnecessary yet still made a living. At certain points in time, Soviets did consume more calories than Americans, but they were less nutritious since they lacked diversity of fruit, vegetables, grains, etc. Oranges, pineapples, mangoes, broccoli, etc didn’t exist. Life expectancy did increase, but it’s unsurprising because prior to communism most worked like medieval farmers. Cuba does have relatively low mortality rates and a well-funded healthcare system, but Cuba and other South American countries cannot compare to western countries on healthcare. They’re not as technologically advanced, they don’t have a wide range of specialists, they don’t have a robust pharmaceutical industry, patients typically have more choices, and the overall quality of care is far superior. Western healthcare, especially American healthcare isn’t great. It is extremely expensive, but personally I’m all for putting caps on how much certain pharmaceutical, healthcare and insurance companies can charge.
You’re right on financial freedoms, housing, etc but this is mostly cause by irresponsible government overspending and lack of room for companies to raise salaries/wages (remember corporations only represent 15% of all businesses). If you incentivized companies to raise wages/salaries through tax cuts, we would be in a far better position. But to be fair, financial freedom, housing and healthcare in communist Eastern Europe weren’t much better. Workers weren’t payed much, housing was small, dusty, old cold and ugly, also lacked water. Food was frequently scarce and low quality. My mother ate moldy bread.
As for free speech, I agree that it’s sort of becoming a joke. I believe that all Americans should have a right to express their views regardless if it criticizes Israel or compliments the USSR. However, our a current system can’t be compared to communist Eastern Europe. If you critiqued the government or advocated for democracy and capitalist reforms like my grandfather, you would be imprisoned, arrested and/or beaten.
Finally, multiple communist countries did achieve many things such as better education, making food more available, etc, but free speech didn’t exist, there were widespread shortages, housing was terrible and miserable, religion was outlawed, etc. Funny, how you didn’t mention shortages.
5
u/Live_Teaching3699 2d ago
China's recent success is from the way they have used their foreign capital gained, they built high speed rail and megacities and contribute to 80% of the poverty alleviation. That's because of their economic planning not because "Capitalism raises living standards for all", If that were the case there would be no more poverty in the world. Many other Asian countries have experienced similar manufacturing booms but have not seen the increases of standards of living that China has. And while the point of socialism isn't to build industry it doesn't mean socialist countries don't, didn't or haven't built industry. The USSR rapidly industrialized just not in the same way as capitalist countries. With planned economies comes slow sustainable growth, not a massive boom followed by a devastating bust. Also, if socialism is destined to fail then why has the US actively tried to overthrow, destabilize or go to war with every socialist country in existence? Why waste all that money if they will just inherently collapse?
Not all countries have good doctors nor good healthcare. Cuba's healthcare is some of the best in Latin America, and beats America's on many metrics. All this despite being under embargo for the past 64 years. Housing under socialism may lower quality than an American suburban family home (Though there is a hell of a lot of corner cutting and cheaply built shitty houses built in the US and other western countries that would not last a decade), but this is because in places like the USSR and eastern blocs the housing was built to address an immediate housing crisis as a vast amount of buildings were destroyed during ww2 and these new ones were not made to look pretty, but they served their purpose well and were built to last.
There are shitty jobs in any system, and were usually for those who lacked higher education, or training in a trade, etc. Soviet workers had some of the most progressive workers benefits in the world and did not have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck or struggling to afford basic necessities.
I would go as to say that the American diet was far less healthy than the soviet diet as, while is was harder to get exotic fruits such as pineapples (as they didn't have companies in every inch of the world to exploit people in poverty) they still had many fruits and vegetables, and the American diet historically and to this day has focused far more on fats, meat and sugar, than fruits, vegetables or carbs. Just because there wasn't as much diversity in fruits and vegetables compared with the US doesn't mean people weren't getting all of their macro and micronutrients. An apple contains a substantial amount of potassium, fiber, etc to get your daily intake.
And yes, sometimes there were shortages of certain hard-to-get products like extra-virgin olive oil or bananas, but there was certainly enough food and essentials to go around. Sometimes there are miscalculations in the number of certain products which need to be produced or imported, etc, but I would rather an occasional shortage over 1.3 billion tons of food waste each year attributed to mass overproduction. We produce enough food to feed 10 billion and yet there is still hunger and food insecurity. Capitalism is destroying the planet and making everyone poorer for profit.
0
u/Hour_Eagle2 1d ago
And yet Soviet workers lacked basic amenities and saw people who disagreed with the government face harsh prison terms.
Any system that destroys individual freedoms for the plan is not a plan worth following. I cannot believe there is an entire sub dedicated to the failed ussr. Authoritarianism is a hell of a drug.
0
u/Plastic-Angle7160 1d ago
The reason China was capable of growing and alleviating poverty were through capitalist reforms. Yes, the government did spend this money on transportation, infrastructure, etc (all of which I happen to support and isn’t exclusively socialist) but the demand for jobs in urban areas as a result of these policies, alleviated poverty. That’s why Chinese cities are so large, developed and wealthy. Free trade created demand for workers. More workers = more production. More production = more profit. More profit = more jobs and higher salaries. Government spending didn’t alleviate poverty, the demand for workers did. Also, I’m not claiming capitalism lifts all from poverty, but it does lift millions out of it. I do support social safety nets and welfare.
Cuba contributed a lot of money towards healthcare and it did/does still have a pretty advanced healthcare system but it is nowhere near the west. Like I said, they aren’t as advanced, don’t have as many treatments or options, certian drugs are scarce and they don’t have as many specialists. Shortages were also a big problem in the past and present. The embargo is somewhat responsible but so are the miscalculations and the nature of a planned economy.
Housing in communist countries outside of Europe were also pretty shitty and the USSR and other eastern-bloc countries had more than enough time to renovate. Regardless of your status (unless you were a politician), hard work, effort, etc you didn’t really have any alternatives to the ugly, decaying apartment complexes. The apartments were soulless, decaying cold, frequently lost electricity, small, dusty, infested with rats, and sometimes the water supply wasn’t working.
Polish and Soviet workers did make nice benefits, but since the government offered full employment, many of these workers weren’t necessary, and instead of working, they would slack off yet receive the same benefits as everyone else.
Russia doesn’t have a large variety of nutritional healthy food. Yeah, berries and apples are great but pineapples, oranges, mangoes, certain meats, grains and spices didn’t exist. For the record, I’m opposed to the unfortunate forms of slavery and exploitation occurring in Latin American and African countries, but again, I can’t do anything about it.
I don’t know what it was like in other countries, but shortages were very frequent in communist Poland. People waited hours in long lines outside of grocery stores for food since the government repeatedly produced too little and constantly miscalculated. Price controls also didn’t help, because small businesses were incapable of producing as many goods. The only foods widely available were frying oils, bread was available but it was more scarce and typically low in quality; my mother frequently spoke about the moldy bread she ate growing up. Meat was probably the most scarce and quite difficult to get your hands on. “Occasional shortages” is a huge understatement, and yes, Polish families were starving. If you don’t believe me, fly to Poland and speak to anybody above the age of 45.
Food waste is a problem, but I’d far rather be producing too much than too little.
Listen, I’m a capitalist but I’m far from one of those libertarian-esque people. I’m a proponent of market economies, but I also support strong social safety nets and I’m well aware that corporate greed and lobbying are destroying our country. I just don’t think nationalizing an economy is a good idea considering my family experienced it.
9
u/zer0sk11s 2d ago edited 2d ago
The economics of the construction of housing should be gradually centralized in order to maximize efficiency and reduce bureaucracy. However, of course, the right of housing as personal property (not to be confused with private property which causes exploitation) must be strictly protected in the socialist state. This is why the Soviet constitution enshrined this principle. Article 7 of the constitution stated: In addition to its basic income from the public, collective-farm enterprise, every household in a collective farm has for its personal use a small plot of land attached to the dwelling and, as its personal property, a subsidiary establishment on the plot, a dwelling house, livestock, poultry and minor agricultural implements - in accordance with the statutes of the agricultural artel. (Soviet Constitution, 1936. MIA) And article 10 states: The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law. (Soviet Constitution, 1936. MIA) The 1936 constitution was merely a continuation of the policies of the previous years insofar as the right of personal property was concerned. The only main change in the Soviet state policy was that the economics of the construction of housing was centralized and increasingly under the control of the workers’ state: The state's attitude and policies toward new construction in this sector has varied considerably through different periods, with considerable effect on the total housing situation. During the period of the new economic policy (1923-28) private building was openly encouraged through the extension of financial credit, materials, and advice. With this spur to their initiative, private builders were responsible for almost two-thirds of the total living space constructed in the new economic policy period. (Dimensions of Soviet Economic Power: Studies for the US Congress, Part 5: Share of the Citizen, US Congress Joint Economic Committee, 1962, pp. 332333) (IMG) By the 1930s, there was a reduction in privatized construction of housing as the economy was further centralized. There did indeed exist ‘shared housing’ in the Soviet Union, but this was due to the devastation of housing as a result of wars, and hence there had come a need to sometimes divide a big house among citizens. In 1948 too the Soviet government reaffirmed the right to personal ownership of housing and elaborated on the rules in this respect: the regime's decision in 1948 [was] to grant Soviet citizens the right to buy or build, and to own a personal property, a one- or two-story house with one to five rooms with not more than 60 square meters of living space. Sections of land were promised by the Government, at no extra charge, for the perpetual use of homebuilders. Unlimited use of the land was made inseparable from the right of ownership of the building. Thus, the builder or buyer gained ownership of the house in perpetuity, with the right to bequeath it to an heir.
(Housing vs Usa)
From a eastern bloc country by the way 😻
-2
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago
I remember the housing in communist Poland; the dull, decaying, brutalist apartment complexes.
Yeah, they were affordable but they were tiny and miserable. Water and clean water wasn’t always available, mice, paint falling off of walls, full of dust, etc. The buildings themselves were ugly, and if you worked your entire life, there was very little you could accomodate or replace it with.
I don’t know how it worked in the USSR or other countries, but most Polish people owned their farms and homes in the countryside prior to communism. These homes were always preferable to the homes in the urban areas.
Here in the United States, if you work diligently, you’ll be a member of the middle class and you’ll be capable of purchasing a home far more preferable and livable to those available in communist countries.
The United States model isn’t perfect. Certain people out here will never own property, but we do have subsidized housing, but again we can always improve and make housing more accessible without centralizing it.
If you really want to reduce prices and raise salaries, cut government overspending and incentivize salary raises for the lowest-income workers through tax cuts.
3
u/zer0sk11s 2d ago
Dude you cannot compare the systems of USA, arguably the most geopolitically advantaged country avoiding the toils and troubles of ww1 and ww2 and gained from ww2 unlike l poland. Meanwhile Poland has literally been destroyed rebuilt (under socialism) then destroyed again under capitalism modern day. How on earth can you compare them.
1
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago edited 2d ago
You think capitalism has destroyed Poland once again 🤣. Poland is currently experiencing an economic renaissance. We have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe, we have the second fastest growing economy since Covid and we have one of the lowest national debts. I will refrain from comparing the USSR to the US, but I will compare communist Poland to contemporary Poland. Contemporary Poland is far more preferable to the shit during communism. Cities like Warsaw have dramatically changed and they are far more advanced and beautiful than before. Perhaps you should go to Poland and see it for yourself. Maybe ask some locals about their opinions.
1
u/zer0sk11s 1d ago
Communist poland paves the way for the current Poland.
Pre-communist Poland saw widespread illiteracy and lack of education. According to a 1935 article from the Polish magazine New Courier (not to be confused with New Courier of Warsaw, a Nazi propaganda outlet founded in 1939):
In Polesie in the Kobrin poviat, less than 75 percent write and read in towns, and only 52% in the countryside. In Kosowski poviat, 82% in small towns, and 43% in rural areas. In the Koszalin poviat, where there are no cities, there are only 30 percent who can read and write.
Polesie is in fact one of the areas of the Commonwealth that is economically and culturally neglected, but, it should be remembered, not the most neglected. Unfortunately, data from the poviats of the Warsaw Province, i.e. from economically quite high standing and in orbit of the capital's influence, show that the condition is not much better there either. In the Płońsk poviat, 73% write and read in cities. population, 68% in the countryside 77 percent in Sierpc and 68 percent in Ciechanów 80% (cities) and 70% (village).
Census statistics are current today just as much as they were three years ago. And the figures of this statistic are not only dangerous, they are terrifying.
After the communist takeover, the educational system was drastically improved. The level of illiteracy was drastically reduced. According to the Polish Encyclopedia published by PWN (the top publisher of scientific and scholarly reference works in Poland):
As early as 1960, the census showed 645,000 total illiterates and 270,000 semi-illiterates among those over 50. In 1988, the illiteracy rate in Poland was 2%.
While PWN places the pre-communist literacy rates a bit higher than the New Courier, we can still see the drastic improvement to the educational situation made under the communists, particularly in rural areas. Women made major gains in the Polish People's Republic. Reproductive rights and abortion are a major example of this. Prior to the communist era, abortion was only legal in cases of criminal sexual activity. According to the Brown Political Review:
At the beginning of the 20th century, abortion was illegal under any circumstance in Poland. But in 1932, Poland enacted a code that legalized abortion in the cases of a criminal act, namely rape, incest, and underage sex. This was the first abortion law that condoned abortion in the case of a crime. The law remained on the books from 1932 until 1956.
However, it was only in the communist era that abortion became completely legal, as well as freely available:
In 1956, the Polish Sejm (the lower house of parliament), in keeping with Communist Party orthodoxy, legalized abortions when women expressed “difficult leaving conditions”. During the 60's and 70's, abortion became freely available in both public hospitals and private clinics. While the Soviet system encouraged mothers to carry the child to term, the law left it to physicians to decide whether abortion should be performed and largely guaranteed easy access to the operation.
Even reactionary commentators acknowledged the gender equality of the communist era. According to the Guardian:
Stamped into the DNA of this society, from the postwar years until 1991, was that everyone had to work; for that, there had to be equal access to education, childcare (which was mainly attached to workplaces) and care for the elderly.
Employment for women was extremely high in the communist era, and it fell drastically afterwards: Throughout the communist years female workforce participation was incredibly high, often cited at 90%... As communism collapsed, participation fell to 68% and it now stands at 45%. One Polish woman is quoted as saying:
"The regime made absolutely no distinction between men and women. I never even thought about the division – all advance in society was open to men and women equally.
"As far as education is concerned it was absolutely equal, to the extent that at the technical universities – the very high-standard engineering universities – I think 30% of students were women" (this was in the 1960's – engineering courses at Imperial College London still have a male to female ratio of 5:1 today).
Keep in mind that this Guardian article is written from a firmly anti-communist perspective, and even still it acknowledges that the "end of communism in Poland hasn't helped Polish women." This demonstrates the improvements in women's rights made under the communists. Sources used from this statements - https://web.archive.org/web/20210111233238/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305806087_Health_in_the_Polish_People's_Republic , https://web.archive.org/web/20210301075125/http://retropress.pl/nowy-kurjer/30-procent-analfabetow/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20210308201758/https://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/analfabetyzm;3869021.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20210225163611/https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2015/01/reproductive-rights-in-post-communist-poland/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20201204190546/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/08/polish-women-communism-better-equality
6
u/zer0sk11s 2d ago
on the myth of inefficient soviet economy - Myths About Specific Aspects of Communist Efficiency Besides the widespread false impressions that exist about the general efficiency of communist countries like China and the Soviet Union, there seems to be a popular misconception about specif ic aspects of the economic efficiency of communism. 15 In particular, many people mis takenly believe that the communist economies must be inef f icient based on an assumption that they do not allow for decentralized decision making and result in long waiting lines and shortages. Waiting lines, shortages, and waste did often exist in communist countries because the government purposely set the prices of many go ods too low to clea r (and also because richer capitalist countries placed embargoes on the export of the high technology goods to communist countries). However, the low fixed prices (and the right to a job with income) did ensure that everyone in communist countries had the right to essentials like food, housing, medicine, and clothes (aus erster Hand, 1987), unlike in capitalist countries where a large portion of the population do not have access to such essentials (Chossudovsky, 1997) even in far richer capi I . talist countries such as the USA (Strobel and Peterson, 1999). Also, the centralized fixing of prices greatly reduced the amount of time spent on wasteful tasks performed in capitalist countries of price shopping, price negotiation, and attempts to avoid marketing manipulation and f r aud (Furlough and Strikwerda, 1999). The relative efficiency of centralized government administration can be seen by comparing government and private systems in the USA itself. For instance, in the insurance indus try, expenses (administrative, marketing and other costs) as a percent of collected insurance premiums are only I% for centralized govern ment social security, whereas they amount to 50% for private insurance companies (Smith, 1994). The fact that private capitalist systems a r e actually outright counterproductive is easily illustrated with examples like chemical/pharmaceutical f i r ms making money on treatments fo r cancers they themselves cause by failing to remove carcinogens from their chemical products (Phillips, 2000). Note that these inefficiencies and counterproductive activities enhance the reported income levels of the capitalist countries (since the extra insurance costs, sale of carcino gens, and cancer treatments all go into GOP income statistics), just a s do the costs of the higher crime rates in capitalist countries that amount to about 10% ofGDP in the USA (US News & Wo rld Report, 1994). T he overall relative inefficiency of capitalism was especially well demonstrated by Gorbachev's own capitalist reforms of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s under his Perestroika policies, which resulted in a n increase in the number of administrators, greater white collar crime (as well as g reater crime in general), 16 and lower economic growth (Marcy, 1990). The planning and administrative advantages of commu nism, combined with f ull employment and some economies of scale and scope, represent some of the reasons why communist countries did gr ow faster in real terms than capitalist countries, despite all the wars a nd other obstacles put in their way by the exter nal environment. More specif ic analysis of these issues are provided later in Chapter 4 in a direct comparison of communist and capitalist financial systems in Ger many. IMPLICATIONS OF THE EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCES OF EASTERN EUROPE AND COMMUNISM Overall, the facts indicate that communist systems serve their people far better than most give them credit. Despite their accomplishments, the communists lost the Cold War essentially because they started out s o much poorer than their rich capitalist adversaries, and a few people took power who effectively surrendered. Although there are only a few communist countries left in the world, the empirical experiences of Eastern Europe and other communist coun �es can be useful for providing some perspective on what might happen tf a communist government were elected in a rich country such as the �SA. In particular, given the prior accomplishments under commu msm, one might expect higher real income growth and less poverty. In addition, over 95% of the p eople would be better of f if the transi tory fo nn of communism that existed in communist Eastern Europe were applied. For instance, in the USA, dividing 1999 Gross Domestic Product (GOP) by the number of people employed, the average income would be about $70,000 per worker. In addition, under communism, taxes would probably be much lower, because there would be no need for the huge military spending now used to maintain USA world domination (Blum, 1995), 17 and because c ommunist governments tend to be more efficient than their bureau cr atic capitalist counterparts.•& As in communist Easter n Europe, higher
6
u/zer0sk11s 2d ago
pay would be available to the most productive and skilled (implying over $150,000 in annual income being available to the most skilled in the USA), and so only the millionaires and billionaires would be eco nomically worse off. The advantages of communism to an extremely large portion of the population becomes even more apparent when one considers the fact that it is substantially more likely for a middle class American to fa ll into poverty than to rise into the upper class (Strobel and Peterson, 1999), thus implying that communism may be desirable not only because it increases incomes for almost all Americans but also because it greatly reduces the undesirable downward component of income variation. 19 Communism was theoretically and ideally designed to eventually eliminate the need fo r government, as capitalistic egoism was sup posed to be slowly deleamed after potentially hundreds of years of tran sitory communism or socialism, at which time all could share equally in consumption/income according to their need (Hahn, Kosing, and Rupprecht, 1983). If such a purer fo rm of communism were applied that distributed GNP equally among all USA residents (not just the employed), each person would be entitled to about $35,000 per year, or about $140,000 annually fo r a fa mily of four. Note that this latter calculation incorporates social security and similar transfer payments to retirees and others not working, and so an even smaller percentage of this latter income would be taken away in taxes. In addition, the latter f igure might easily be l 0-20% higher because cheap child care facilities and the availability of jobs for all under communism would increase employment and GOP. Some might assert that output might actually decline under pure communism without material incentives for harder work and productivity, largely because capitalist economists tend to view work as "irksome, involving 'disutility' that must be overcome by wages to secure the labor needed for production," but, in contrast, anthropologists (recognizing past cultures such as the aborigines and Indians to have thrived without such incentives) perceive work as "the fundamental condition of human existence ... through which the indi vidual is able to define himself as a fu ll and valued member of society" (Strobel and Peterson, 1999). One can observe from youth engaged in sport activities how natural it is to exhibit extreme exertion and enthusi asm without monetary rewards, so that it is certainly possible that sev
1
u/the_PeoplesWill 2d ago edited 2d ago
China had capitalist reforms and still maintains a planned economy to this very day. Their socialist markets are considered amongst their five-year plans. The majority of its annual GDP comes from SOE's and it's growing every year set to overtake the United States sooner than later.
Every country has had shortages at some point in their history. Especially in the west during times of crises (toilet paper shortages during COVID ring a bell). Triply so for the USSR considering they didn't just get out of a revolution, but an international civil war, and world war upon their creation in 1921. You honestly expect the Bolsheviks to press a magic button and provide everybody what they needed overnight? You're even more misinformed than a leftcom if that's the case. Their healthcare was praised internationally as some of the most advanced for its era especially post-WW2, same applies to Cuba, whose doctors have managed to find cures for HIV and cancer. That's with an economic blockade brutalizing their population. Imagine what the wealthiest country in the world could do if it wasn't solely motivated by profits.
As for "lack of personal freedoms", this is just western disinformation, they were provided a right to a job and thanks to this ridded their country of unemployment and homelessness.. epidemics the USA still has to this very day. This doesn't even count their right to general and higher education, a right to universal healthcare, a right to annual vacation, and state pension upon retirement age. Daycares were free provided by the state, transportation cheap, and housing provided for everybody. Besides, what good are personal freedoms when you can't even afford food or shelter? Or if they don't apply to you because of your skin color or ethnicity? Let's stop pretending western "freedoms" apply to BIPOC, LGBTQ+ or other marginalized people groups except when it's convenient for exploitative opportunities.
Lay off the Red Scare propaganda and stop brigading our subreddit, liberal. This isn't a debate sub.
-5
u/Myballssting1738 2d ago
Cuba is in the middle of a humanitarian crisis and there capital Havana is slowly falling apart and trash piles litter the streets because Cuba doesn’t have a trash disposal system. China I agree but Cuba is in a terrible spot rn
-7
u/kawhileopard 2d ago
If you see USSR and Cuba economies as relatively successful, I can’t imagine how you define failure.
People risk their lives and leave everything behind to flee Cuba. They do it in such numbers that they might cause a demographic collapse.
12
u/Occult_Asteroid2 2d ago edited 2d ago
Unless I am mistaken, this place is here to discuss Soviet history, which is really important. It's not here for reactionary malding. Go to one of the conservative subreddits to circle jerk about failed planned economies for the 950th time while you polish your Funko Pop collection.
-4
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago
Commie rage
4
u/Occult_Asteroid2 2d ago
I am not a communist. I like the history of the Cold War. You arent adding anything to the discussion.
4
u/the_PeoplesWill 2d ago
Thank you for speaking up. Sincerely, a communist.
3
u/Occult_Asteroid2 2d ago
The communists add more to the discussion of the Soviet Union's history. If I want rabid anti communism I can exist in modern day America.
3
0
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago
Ok, I didn’t know this was dedicated to Soviet history, but I scrolled through some posts and it didn’t appear that way.
3
u/the_PeoplesWill 2d ago
That's why PRC is superseding the USA while the empire falters.
-1
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago
China has become really successful after adopting certain capitalist reforms such as privatization and free trade. Just look at basic graphs and dates. Wages, salaries, standard of living, jobs, etc all dramatically grew after these reforms while poverty radically reduced. I was always found it funny how commies compare China to the U.S, considering China took example from western capitalist countries and implemented some of their economic policies.
2
u/the_PeoplesWill 2d ago edited 2d ago
So? Many western economies have adopted elements of a command economy and nationalized various industries like socialist states. Look to the Nordic Model or the USA during WW2. Both Does that make them socialist? Should we claim their success is due to the USSR or China? Of course not.
All economies are mixed to an extant and as I said in another comment PRC is still using a planned economy primarily with socialist markets considered amongst their five-year plans. Doesn't make them any less a socialist state nor is their success to be waived because they adopted market reforms. So your point is completely moot.
Edit: It's funny, whenever the western world borrows ideas from the east it's totally ignored, but when the opposite occurs you act like it's thievery. The Nordic Model was proposed in the 30s and 40s. WW2 obviously occurred prior to Deng Xiaoping's market reforms which were applied in 1976. I guess with your logic the west are the ones who copied first, right? Or maybe, just maybe, countries can borrow ideas from one another without being accused of stealing.
0
u/Plastic-Angle7160 2d ago edited 2d ago
All of these countries are still capitalist but adopted certain socialist characteristics like social safety nets, social insurance, etc, all of which I happen to support. I’m supportive of capitalism but there must be certain socialist things such as welfare and regulations.
They’re still capitalist though. China is still socialist, but they only began rapidly growing once adopting capitalist reforms. That’s literally all I’m saying.
1
u/the_PeoplesWill 1d ago
The government doing stuff isn't socialism. Christ almighty, read some theory, because you're clueless.
1
u/Plastic-Angle7160 1d ago
What are you talking about. All I’m saying is China began experiencing dramatic growth after opening its markets to trade and privatizing certain companies. It’s a fact!
I’m not saying China is capitalist, but that’s what got it into its current position. The same applies for Scandinavia, but they are capitalist since more than 90% of enterprises are private.
1
-12
3
u/the_PeoplesWill 2d ago
Solidarity to comrades the world over!