Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
A bit dishonest to point to the drops in life expectancy and the general 1940s and 1950s period without mentioning World War II, where the Nazis waged a war of extermination and genocide on those they considered genetically inferior, don't you think? Same with comparing a highly developed country that saw no land fighting in World War II to the country devastated the most by it that was a feudal backwater only a couple decades prior when it comes to infant mortality. The bit on literacy is also misleading, the vast majority of all SSRs pre-Socialism were illiterate.
Outside of curiously leaving out World War 2 and the massive devastation it brought (80% of combat in World War 2 was on the Eastern Front), as well as comparing directly to the United States that never saw the same destruction and started the century several laps ahead, your only real criticism was a lack of consumer goods. This is true, light industry was lacking and being closed off from the Global Economy was indeed a contributing factor to its dissolution, but you could have pointed to that honestly.
No, most Marxists don't want to go back in time to the first Socialist state, they would rather learn from what worked and what didn't and be part of building a Communist future.
No I don't think so. For one reason part of the massive losses were Soviet Military tactics of meatwaves (which Russia still uses today) during WWII. For another, the Holomodor was an extra 10 million citizens of the USSR starved to death that occurred long before WWII when Stalin took all the grain from the people that grew it and let them starve to death. Starving your farmers to death is a monumentally stupid decision for a nation that struggles with food supply. This is the hypocrisy of Soviet Communism. Marx and Engels wrote about empowering the masses, equality in everything, and society without class or station. Yet the USSR was anything but that. History shows that the actions of the state saw massive numbers of dead citizens as a means to an end in both war and peace. Trotsky himself was a victim of the Stalin's USSR. Famous and brilliant Soviet orbital rocket designer Sergei Korolev, was another victim dying from complications from living in gulag. Do you think Marx and Engels would have seen their ideas at work in the Soviet Union?
The infant mortality was more than double the USA every year for the entire existence of the USSR. Or are you claiming WWII was still to blame for the higher infant mortality 45 years after Hitler ate a bullet ending war in the European theater?
Is there consensus in the Marxist community about any nation today practicing this Communism 2.0 or is it all just political theory at this point?
You don't think it's important to consider that the specific life expectancy you reported as a cause of Socialism was in-fact during World War II, when the Nazis invaded the Ukrainian SSR (the whole USSR's breadbasket at the time), deliberately starving the populace in an attempt to weaken them? Where the Nazis torched the land they took and destroyed so many buildings that the Soviets were forced to mass produce the "Soviet Bloc" style apartments in order to provide housing after the war? Slavic people were considered genetically inferior by the Nazis and were subject to genocide.
As for the "human waves" tactics, reports of such originate with Americans that went into Russia during the Civil War in order to support the fascist White Army that wished to reinstate the Tsar. Not only is this a dubious source at best, historians agree that during World War II Soviet Tactics were roughly on par with the Nazis. The "Human Waves" myth has always drawn on racism, trying to draw parallels between the asiatic slavic peoples and the idea of the Mongol Horde, a propaganda tactic employed by Goebbels.
There was famine in the USSR, during the 1930s and during World War II. Outside of those periods, food became far more secure over time, as collectivized agriculture was better than the previous system.
As for comparing to thr US, that's akin to comparing a trust fund kid to someone who grew up poor. The United States began the 20th century as one of the most developed countries in the world, while Russia began as a semi-feudal backwater. In the mid 20th century, the US began to profit massively off of World War II, while the Eastern Front saw 80% of the total combat in the entirety of the war. To compare the two directly is just bad science.
As for Marx and Engels, they would see the analytical tools and analysis of Capitalism and classes being used in the Soviet Union and would have generally approved. Today, they'd see the various Marxist states like Cuba, China, and Vietnam learning from the successes and failures of the Soviet Union and likeky approve as well. However, such a thought experiment doesn't mean much, as Marx was no prophet nor a god, just a man who developed a brilliant critique of Capitalism, philosophical framework of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and broadly described Scientific Socialism as opposed to prior Utopianism.
Is that the technical term? I'm guessing your source for that is Enemy at the Gates lmao.
Soviet military tactics in WWII were quite innovative and effective. The Soviets developed the military category of "Operations," in between the levels of the strategic and the tactical. Soviet operations focused on breaching the enemy line in order to deal as much damage as possible to the support crew, then evaluating whether the position could be held and frequently withdrawing before reinforcements could arrive. This was reflective of communist ideology, which emphasized the importance of unglamorous work, and therefore, targeted the unglamorous work of the enemy during wartime.
This was in stark contrast to their adversaries, who held the exact opposite ideology act acted accordingly. The Nazis were obsessed with proving their superiority at every turn, and also terrified of disappointing their superiors. The Soviet approach of tactically retreating after a successful breach would've been unthinkable and ridiculed (and punished) as weak and cowardly. The Nazis had little formal doctrine and their military reports were generally full of lies and fluff to impress their superiors, while the Soviets took a much more rigorous and almost scientific approach.
The heroic efforts of the Soviets were the primary reason the world was saved from fascism, and it is absolutely absurd to lay the blame for the men, women, and children who were killed - including the brutal, indiscriminate mass slaughter and burning alive of civilians - at the feet of the people who put the perpetrators in their graves.