Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Top Five Causes Of The USSR Collapse (and 2 more You Never Knew About) #USSR" video.

3:00 Actually the primary definition of Socialism is Common Control. Not worker Control. Worker Control came about because of Marxism but the socialist movement pre-dates Marxism. When you look up Common Control it can literally mean almost anything under the sun that said "group" of socialist want it to mean at that particular time. Which is why Austrian Economist "Ludwig von Mises" who gave rise to the Austrian School of Economics and was himself a former socialist in his youth before abandoning it entirely stated in one of his books that the Definition of Socialism has periodically changed throughout the century. And I paraphrased that as I don't know the exact quote. However, even today, there isn't a Consensus on what Socialism even is even among Socialist, and I'm not talking about the grunts on the ground but intellectuals. During the 19th Century Socialist activist had already split the movement into multiple different camps, and by the 19th Century even the Marxist camp had broken into rival groups. All having their own ideas on what Socialism is. Communism at one time and history even used to be a synonym for Socialism but has since been distanced from it primarily because of Lenin and the USSR, as an example how it's ever changing. However, Common Control can include State Control, even in the Communist sense if you're in a Worker's State and the State consist of the Workers ie Soviets ie Trade Unions, hence the name Soviet Union originally, then well the Worker's are technically the State. Issue is those at the top of those worker's consuls live like kings. It's actually the same logic that the Italian Fascist used to claim they're the ultimate form of Democracy as a State that is the people, which means that even if the State controls everything the State is the people and in turn no one is a slave, and everyone is free because everyone is the state. Hence why Giovanni Gentile literally said "Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state." Fascism itself was built off of Marxist Syndicalism. They abandoned Classism and replaced it with Nationality. Which is why it isn't built around Labor, or Workers anymore. But they still push for State Centralized Control. Look up National Syndicalism, Fascist Syndicalism and Fascist Corporatism. It's quite interesting how many Italian and Austrian Fascist were former Marxist Socialist. Even German Fascist like Hitler and Sepp Dietrich were members of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
2
@mattysav4627 I would argue the Communism and Socialism were Synonyms of each other so their goals used to be the same thing. Being they used to be part of the same general movement. As I already said between Intellectuals Socialism was a heavily split movement but for the common man supporting Socialism it was "one thing" to them Communism and Socialism were the same thing. Being Intellectuals still haven't decided what Socialism even is, as I mentioned Mises's claim that definition has changed constantly over time, heavily implies that socialist are still trying to figure out what Socialism is, which is an admission they actually don't' know. This is why you can often have multiple Socialist intellectuals today on a debate all having varied definitions of socialism, because it isn't a consensus yet even among those who champion it. As I mentioned this has been a problem for Socialist for 200+ years now. Dates back nearly to the very beginning of the movement. I mean Proto Nazis existed already in the 19th Century with their own ideas of Socialism. Libertarian Socialism had already been founded by the 19th Century. State Socialism which is the most common Socialism which is included in Social Democracy, Preussen Socialism (Proto Nazis), Syndicalism ie Trade Unionism which includes Corporatism in my opinion being it branched from Syndicalism, ie making a country ruled by Trade Unions which the Soviet Union was pretty much being it was a Federation of Trade Consuls, so a Nation run by Trade Unions. Which is why I compare the USSR to Fascist Italy being Italy adopted Corporatism which was a less extreme form of Syndicalism. I know Syndicalist claim their movement is anti state but they still advocate creating a collective community which lets face it would be a state. Which is why I didn't mention Anarcho Syndicalist because honestly they're just Syndicalist but ones that adopted a contradiction. I mean there are so many different forms of Socialism that it would be hard to make a definition of it, and it's understandable why Intellectuals have that problem. I would recommend watching TIK History's videos on this subject. He does a great job quoting intellectuals from these movements in many of these videos, even if you do not agree with his conclusions. TIK would claim that in the 1920s Socialist went through a large Socialist civil war in the heart of Europe. Which would give rise to Fascism, and eventually Nazism as some former socialist ended up rejecting the old ideas and decided to create their own socialism. Because that socialism civil war shattered their entire world view on socialism and they utterly lost faith in the socialist they used to follow. The split in the German Socialist Democratic Party the SPD being a great example, or how Hitler and Deitrich were members of the Communist Party of Bavaria while many other eventual nazis served with the Freikorp under the Social Democratic (Also a Socialist Party) against the Communist, which is literal Socialist fighting Socialist. Even if the Freikorp was doing it on the SPD's behalf. But he is glad to point out that they were all Socialist in 1919/1920 yet were enemies. Similar to how Lenin absolutely destroyed the Social Democrats in the Russia which even formed a democratic government in Saint Petersburg which he destroyed btw which is why the Social Democrats in Germany take a hard line against the pro Leninist Communist say the Spartacus and Bavarian People's Republic. Because Lenin had eliminated their Russian peers with violence/death and if the Leninist in Germany achieved power they'd do the same to all other socialist. This was literally a Socialist vs Socialist war. Yet some how despite this the SPD are often referred to as right wing counter revolutionaries by pro Marxist writers/historians which is just mind blowing. I mean they're Far Right despite being Socialist, and they're Counter Revolutionaries Despite being the first Revolutionary Government after the fall of the Kaiser. Makes you never want to trust a word from a Marxist ever again.
2
@mattysav4627 😆 All forms of pay, wages and salary = reward for your work. Golly man, do you even understand incentives? If people were not rewarded they wouldn't work at all and civilization as we know it would crumble into non-existence. So by default people have to be rewarded or nonthing at all would get done. So saying "Socialism rewards people for their labor" is redundant because they better reward people other the whole system would collapse. Talk about a way to yank on Socialism's horn stating something that is the core of ALL civilization today.
2
@mattysav4627 You're basing you're entire perspective off Marxonian Theory. Socialism isn't Marxism, though Marxism is Socialism. But judging what Socialism is by Marxism is a huge fallacy, and it's one too many make. Socialism predates Marx himself, and Marxism wasn't the only branch of Socialism in the 19th Century. Mikhail Bakunin being a good example, and a huge critic of Marxism who is also the primary foundation for Modern Libertarian Socialist he was also against the idea of the Working Class being the only Class to be part of the Social Revolution meaning it Bakunin's ideas were not exclusive to "Labor" or the "Workers" as well as many none Marxist Socialist. This means SOCIALISM isn't about the Workers or Labor, only Marxism and branches of Marxism like Syndicalism. Socialism isn't about the Workers. It's about Common Control, and Common Control is whatever said Socialist movement wants it to be as long as it's Community, or Society in Control, it doesn't have to be about the Workers. In the context of Italian Fascism it was Nationalized Trade Unions in control of the Central State, similar to the Soviet Union. This is why when saying the Nazis were not Socialist because they were against the Workers is a serious fallacy. I would argue it's a double fallacy as well because they created a State owned Labor Union, they didn't abolish Trade Unions, they Nationalized them in to the German Labour Front (DAF). Which was a single large state owned trade union, and no business could operate in Germany without hiring workers from that Union, which also means they pretty much eliminated Wage slavery by using the state as the State had absolute say on wages, no longer could the employer dictate on the value of the worker. Similar to when Marxist claim the Nazis were against Welfare because they abolished the welfare state. Which they didn't btw, they Nationalized it. The reason people think they Abolished it was because they closed down all the OLD Weimar Republic and pre-Weimar social programs, but they didn't close them down they turned them over to the Nazi Party. People don't know but the State and the Party were Separate in 1933, it was the Nazi Party ruling the State, but the Nazis wanted absolute power. To have absolute power they closed down most state welfare Programs but then incorporated them directly into the Nazi Party itself as separate entities ie Corporations that the PARTY OWNED and controlled. In short they didn't abolish welfare, they put it under new management, took it from the old State and gave it to the NEW STATE which was the Nazi Party. A none violent revolution as the Nazis would call it. Revolution is a change in government, and most of the Nationalization that went on under the Nazi Regime was called Privatization and Synchronization. Privatization as it was put into the hands of the Party, and Synchronization as those elements that were not put in direct control of the party were made SURE to operate in tangent with the Party's wishes. ie Synchronized. In turn it's all State Power, State Control. There was no Capitalism in Nazi Germany in Short. Despite the word Privatization being used it was none Private. If the Party is the Private Entity then the Soviet Union was also never Socialist as the Party owned everything as well. In all respects, the Nazis didn't lie to the Workers, they lied to the Capitalist. It's a great example why Marxist live in a backwards reality. It wasn't the end stage of Capitalism, it was the rise of Socialism, but one for a Racial Community not a Worker's Community. When it comes to Fascism itself, ie Italian or Austrian Fascism to be precise. Which is distinctively different from Nazism. I think it was Giovanni Gentile the Marx of Fascism who called the Capitalist State an Liberal State, and in turn an Aristocratic State. He said this in direct opposition to Capitalism itself. Despite the Italian Fascist used the Monarchy as a Tool, their Intellectuals were devoutly critical to the old Liberal Economic system that Marxist call "Capitalism." They even used the same term Capitalist to describe it. Like Marx he was also a Hegelian, ironically a lot of Socialist intellectuals were. Including Spengler who wrote the book on Preussen Socialism. Interesting enough, Spengler called the Nazis Bolsheviks in disguise after they took power in Germany and turned on the pro private property aspect of Spengler's Preussen Socialism, despite originally supporting them. His last book he ever wrote before he died was in opposition. If you don't know what Preussen Socialism is, basically through Nationalism everyone would willingly do what is right for the betterment of society and the state, to sum it up. Negating the entire need of a social, or political revolution at all. No need for worker's revolution if business owners treated their workers right, no need for a revolution of the state when everyone in society worked for the betterment of man. He was an ideologue, and foolish romantic.
1
@mattysav4627 "well acctually there was a lot off privization and the state only done those thing to keep control and power and would u call other centrally planned war time capalist economy’s socialist no u wouldn’t" Ya, that argument doesn't work. Privatization isn't Privatization when it's put into the hands of companies who are themselves part of the Nazi Party itself. It's the same exact Tactic that Communist China uses today. It allows private business until they become large and wealthy enough then it forces said business to merge with a large Party owned corporation. It's also why China forces all foreign companies which open offices and factories in China to make local mergers with Chinese firms, it's entirely for the sake of State Control/monitoring That isn't Capitalism when the State is forcing companies to merge with larger entities which the state has a lot of control over. It's a less direct form of State control. And to be frank, it's not much different than having a country run by independent Councils like what was seen in the Soviet Union, just the concept of profit still exist. But even then that profit was often taxed up to about 70% in Nazi Germany and this was pre-war. I'm not even talking about the War time economy. Even that wasn't enough, and they had to introduce the MEFO bills to bring in more capital into the hands of the state. Which was a form of borrowing money from citizens a glorious IOU, issue is like the Vampire Economy points out few had hopes the Nazis would ever pay that money back. "when the nazis nationalised the trade unions they done that so they was not no longer as strong as a reviltionary force by the way and Marxism does not just need to be for the workers it can be for the peasants to based on the situation like moaism for example and syndicalism is not a branch off Marxism also bakunin was a idealist" Yes, the Soviet Union showed how much the Marxist loved peasants as they murdered them for refusing to give up their farming equipment, or giving them enough grain and land they worked on for generations. In the eyes of a Communist Farmers and Peasants might as well also be the bourgeoisie because they're even in the Russian Empire were mostly land owners and no longer serfs and China has to this day never allowed poor rural peasants to have representation in the government only government lackies appointed to run their villages on the state's behalf. Even to this day they're treated as 2nd class citizens when compared to the City Folk not just by the State but by people living in cities because of how they're educated to view peasants. All attempts to allow real representation was crushed by the State. Not very utopian is it? Sorry to say but Marxism if it can also be for the peasants has never practiced it.
1
@mattysav4627 Contradiction.
1
@mattysav4627 The concept of State Capitalism is the Contradiction. It's a True False Fallacy, if it's under the control of the State it is no longer private capital, so it is no longer Capitalism.
1
@mattysav4627 Because it requires a Contradiction for them to exist so they can not exist.
1
@mattysav4627 "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production" Basically it's Economic Liberalism in Practice where the Private Individual is more important than the Collective Group. If the Group is above the Individual then it is no longer Liberalism, and in turn isn't Capitalism either. Being the State is the Public Sector the Group/Collective in other words. The primary contradiction is by saying State Capitalism you're saying None Private = Private. Which is the Contradiction. State Capitalism by socialist definition is when the State "Privately" owns the means of production, the State itself is the Private Owner, which is the Contradiction. At least that is how they apply it to Nazism and Fascisms. As the State can never be the Private Sector as the State is the Public Sector. Issue is this backwards logic can be applied to just about any regime that has money/capital while still having State Ownership or Control. Which is lazy. It's a contradiction that dates back to Marx, when he advocated State Capitalism himself, basically instead of Private Ownership by individuals the State would take Ownership, and be the Capital Producer ie a step before the elimination of capital itself. But in Marxionian theory it's a middle stage between Capitalism and Socialism which is why when Marxist called the Fascist State Capitalist they called it the dying stage of Capitalism because in Marxonian theory it is the dying stage of capitalism. Ironically this plays entirely into pro Nazi and Fascist Propaganda which themselves advocated they were in the middle, an in-between. So it's fun seeing Marxist actually spout Fascist Propaganda.
1
@mattysav4627 You couldn't be more wrong. The US Government provided the Capital, view it as an investment. But the USA doesn't own or manage said railroads. Even then she didn't build all of it. There is no rule that says the State is Forbidden to spend money. To provide Investments for the future. A better example would of been the American Freeways and Interstate Highway system, but even then the State isn't the one moving commerce across it. But the state does own/maintain it. In Nazi Germany the railroads were owned/managed by the State. Nazi officials managed train tables, and maintained it. Even today in the USA all these years later the rails are still separate from the State when it comes to Operation/ownership. It isn't the State who owns the trains, nor does the state maintain it. Unlike our Highways.
1
@mattysav4627 So you're basing your argument on something done before economist even adopted the idea of Capitalism, which didn't become a common term in America until the 1920s. Only among ideologues like Socialist did the term even register on intellectuals before then. Even Capitalist economist didn't exist yet as economic study was a 18/19th century development. As the biggest school on Pro Capitalist and Economic Liberalism like the Australian School and the Chicago School didn't even exist yet. All of this in spite that all railroads in the USA were owned an operated by private firms separate from the State by the end of the 19th century.
1
@mattysav4627 If it's State Funded and State Built using Public Prison Laborers to boot, it has absolutely nonthing to do with Capitalism. 2ndly, If you follow the money just about every movement, politician and regime has dirty hands. So again another argument that doesn't work. Stalin starved millions to accumulation Capital to spend on foreign resources, expertise, and to draw in foreign investments to build up the USSR's economy. So I guess the USSR was State Capitalism as well. 🙄
1
@mattysav4627 Last famine to happen under the pre-Soviet era Russia was absolutely dwarfed by the famine of 1919-1921, which itself was dwarfed again by the 1932-1933 famine. You're using a false equivalency fallacy. Unlike the prior two the 1932 and 1933 famine was Deliberate as well. Though some would argue the 1919-1921 one was deliberate as well, being it was also caused by the Red Army looting/stealing from peasants food/grain, as well as waging a direct war against the farmers. Which actually lead to a few small rebellions. However the 1932-1933 was absolutely without question deliberate. Enough documentation exist to prove so. Secondly Stalin lived like a king. He was the State, all the wealth of the Soviet Union, was under his fingernail. even if on paper he owned hardly anything, in practice he owned everything. But you failed to notice the point I was making. Stalin was the State, on paper her owned hardly anything, but in practice he owned everything. What was that his Potsdam trip in 1945, tens of thousands of red army troops acting as escort, multiple armored trains, multiple booze filled saloon cars among those trains. The man knew how to waste the nation's resources on his own behalf. That being said the fundamental flaw of State Capitalism or the use of the term is still there. Stalin was the State. Your attempt to defend the USSR as not being State Capitalism despite it's exploitation of Capital among it's own people for the ends of the State and it's leaders because of a technicality is why State Capitalism is just stupid. Issue is State Capitalism can be easily applied to all Socialist regimes when looked at critically. Definitely if you use Marx's Definition of Capital, which can mean literally all commodities, which would include a grain of rice, or wheat. Any Accumulation of Capital by way of the central state would in term be State Capitalism and all Socialist regimes are guilty of it. Otherwise they'd never have the capital to trade between other Socialist regimes, or with capitalist regimes. Also to hammer home a contradiction between Stalin and Hitler. Stalin publicly didn't consider his wealth his, but issue is, nor did Hitler. On Hitler's death he gave almost his entire fortune back to the Party, which most of that fortune came from to begin with. He didn't view it as his. Even his private villa was a gift originally. And Stalin himself also had Villas, of which like Hitler he openly shared with other party officials.
1
@mattysav4627 Chapter 4 Volume 1 Das Krapital "The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money... " This dates back to the dawn of human history. The Wheat Empires of the middle east, and Rice Kingdoms of Japan. Before the concept of currency. All commodities = capital. Land is Capital. Clothing is Capital. A cow is Capital. Food is Capital. Jewelry is Capital. Anything that holds value can be used to trade, buy and barter is Capital. Pretty much everything is Capital. So all regimes in turn Accumulate Capital. Even Socialist ones. No regime can exist without Capital or Barter Power. Accumulating more land is even increasing Capital so the Annexation of Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, invasion of Poland in 1919, Annexation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1940 is increasing Capital not just in Land and Resources but bodies to strengthen the Soviet Empire.
1
@mattysav4627 USSR Annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania after forcing military access agreements then double crossing and breaking their agreement with these Baltic States by fully annexing them. Annexed part of Romania with the threat of war, and invaded Finland who were given a similar offer to Romania but refused which caused the Winter War of 1939/40 as the USSR invaded Finland. All between 1939 to 1941 before the Nazis ever went to war against the USSR. All of this was against the will or wishes of those countries and even contributed to alliances between Germany, Finland, Romania and Hungary against the USSR. Ironically it's an identical scenario to eastern Europe today, were Russian aggression is forcing her neighbors to join her enemies. Also yes the wealth went to the people in the USSR every farmer lived in a gold gelded palace occupying old Tsarist era manners and palaces, and ate enough to stay as plump as Stalin, Beria and Zhukov who had such well endowed waist lines. The equality was glorious my kamerad. Sarcasm and Mockery
1
@mattysav4627 "... had a very good socialist government in charge." This is literally why I don't even have to really say much else. Even most socialist admit that the USSR at this time in history was a nightmare, a terror state, and absolutely horrific for common people. "the ussr won the war in Finland and the reasons they went to war are complex Finland band all communists" I could only imagine why they'd ban communism, when next door they had a regime that murdered roughly a million people between both Lenin and Stalin, and I'm not even referring to the Famines. All in the name of the worker.
1
@mattysav4627 "also there is CIA documents saying the ussr had a better nutritional diet than the USA and a similar calorie intake" Refuted so many times by so many and not surprisingly including The Ushanka Show the very channel you're commenting on. Yes he has a video dedicated to what you just said, and why it isn't true. You're coming off as a Stalin era Apologist now. This guy does a great job break down of the Soviet economy in the Stalin era, and post Stalin era and essentially why it collapsed in the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVo9w79D6w You don't want to know how many Socialist I've come across who call the early USSR a Fascist State as well. Some Socialist who are not in denial of the horror that was the first half of Soviet history, even calling Stalin Far Right. Because the similarities between 1920-40s Soviet Union are just too comparable to Fascist and Nazi regimes. Though I'd call them all left wing...
1
@mattysav4627 I doubt it. I've not seen a video thus far that had successfully done that, and honestly Reddit doesn't count, as it's a vacuum of safe spaces. Every time someone has tried, he worked in their arguments in later videos and debunked their counter arguments. I mean The Ushanka show got banned from the Communist Reddit forum for daring to tell the truth about the Soviet Union. So Reddit is honestly a vacuum which you sadly just can not rely on. When I look up people's replies to TIK videos outside of youtube they rely on the same arguments TIK already countered in his videos. So they didn't watch his videos to even know what his arguments are.
1
@mattysav4627 Everyone is bias. You're bias, I'm bias. All historians are bias. All that matters is looking at the evidence. TIK's arguments are just superior to those made by his critics. Even though he and his critics will often use the same evidence. CIA documents are wrong fundamentally because they rely on statistics provided by a Socialist regime. Socialist economic calculations problem by Mises states that because there is no market to judge actual value there is no way to actually know how productive a Socialist economy is. Ushanka Show even points out that GDP figures from the USSR are relatively worthless and the quality of food was considerably worse. Example Soviet Citizen might have access to more meat that is if you can trust the statistics but even if as Ushanka points out it was almost all canned meats and what wasn't was entirely fish, low end bad tasting fish even. So no where near the quality of food consumed by the western nations. CIA relied in Western Nutritional values so reading Soviet Statistics saying say so and so pounds of meat they based the Nutritional value of meat on their report on say pork and beef instead of canned fish.
1
@mattysav4627 Why so many long for thr USSR back? As the Ushanka Show stated Nostalgia. Russia didn't know how actually poor they were because state subsidies masked it. So when the 1990s hit they were forced to face the reality of how empoverished Russia actually was when the state could no longer hold itself up, and in turn the citizens. No better example than this when McDonald's opened in Russia 1990, a month's worth of train/bus fairs for a single Meal.. a meal that was dirt cheap everywhere else in the world cost a small fortune in the USSR because that is how worthless the Rubel was and how subsidized prices were for everything else to hide how little Russia's were actually getting paid. As the saying goes "They pretend to pay us we protend to work." I find it fun both TIK and Ushanka Show use that quote often. Russia is and was a 3rd world country poverty and wealth wise. Only now the State isn't holding people up and hiding it. In this scenario of course people miss the USSR. As Ushanka said it was a conformable poor living in the USSR.
1
@mattysav4627 Challenged? Out of the illusion of power the USSR Challenged the world, and it was that illusion that sustained it's integrity as it even fooled it's enemies, until it was gone. No one outside the USSR predicted it's collapse until it happened, that is how successful the Soviet Propaganda machine was at an international level. USSR only held the Illusion of being a super power by squandering most of it's wealth on it's outward prestige, while leaving it's citizens so poor that they'd have to save for weeks to buy a single meal at McDonald's, something an American can afford with less than an hours wage. That is the illusion of the USSR. The same illusion Russia faces today, years of Russia Strong Propaganda getting crushed into the mud of Ukrainian soil right now. As the international community realizes for the 2nd time in a life time that Russia isn't what it convinced millions around the world it was..."Strong."
1
@mattysav4627 The point isn't false when your example is irrelevant. Burger Kings prices are historically comparable to McDonald's, and regardless of novelty. McDonald's was operating with permission from the Soviet Authority. Do you really think your glorious Soviet government would allow such unfair prices? Unless operational cost was that high?
1
@mattysav4627 "Russia today is no way compareable to the Soviet Union" Actually it is technically better. Russia is one of the biggest exporters of grain and corn, during the USSR the Soviet Union required imports to feed it's people. Economically Russia is stronger in 2010 (Post 2014 F***ed it all up) than it was in 1990. Russians just don't feel it because of how heavily state subsidized living was in the USSR. This can be best explained with how horrifically the Ruble Hyper Inflated in the 1990s. It was already inflated before the 1990s but because of Price Fixing, non one could tell outside of seeing empty store shelves in most towns/cities outside of major cities. Each year post 1991 the Ruble inflated, by 1998 it was like 600-800% less value wise than it was in 1991. 7 years... so something that cost 2-3 rubles say in 1991 cost 600-800 and at times 1000+ Rubles in 1998. Why? Because the Market decided prices now, not the State, and the State lied about what goods were actually valued, and after decades of Currency Inflation, the Ruble was that worthless. It wasn't capitalism, but the failure of socialism that reared it's head in the 90s, as capitalism showed Russians how bad they actually had it in the USSR. Sadly Putin hijacked Russia and it's people will likely never see the economic freedom they deserve, just lies about how good the OLD TIMES were. " yes challenged it won the space race" Oh boy, I guess Nazi Germany was the greatest thing ever for having the First women to fly a Helicopter, Rocket aircraft and Jet Aircraft. ya we know Nazi Germany wasn't the greatest. Nor being the first at anything makes something better, definitely when it's something that is a Total Waste, like the Space Race. It was Prestige, as worthless to a nation's economy as the military. Prestige is Prestige, it's worthless if it doesn't make the citizen's lives better. Examples: Soviet Space Shuttle Buran. Mericans have it so must we! Can't let them show us up! Tupolev Tu-144: Basically a soviet clone of the European Concorde, with shitty engines that would require it to get an overhaul almost every time it flew. Great Prestige points though! Monkey See Monkey do. MiG-23 and Su-24: This one is funny, they wanted to make VERY fast jets, so they copied the American F-4 Phantom's intakes. Right down to the bolt, including the blades used to cut carrier netting despite neither of those aircraft ever being planned to be used on carriers... they didn't know what they were for but assumed they helped it go fast! We Aviation nuts get to have fun making fun of the Soviets for it though. Examples above on how much the USSR really cared about prestige, so much so they blatantly copied other countries. Even though it didn't really do anything outside of making them look good inwardly. "supported so much resistance against imperialism" By invading Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and Hungary (twice). Among other. Also BTW Backing Rebellions to cause major regime changes around the world to create more Chess Pieces on your Team on the board is Imperialism. So Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, all those Communist uprisings in Central West and Central East Africa. List goes on and on. All Soviet Imperialism. I mean it's not okay when the west does it, but man some how it's okay when the USSR does it. "great education and health care even on just that shows how it helped its citizens" Yes which is why the USSR had the largest HIV outbreak in European history, because their medical system was SOOOO good that they couldn't afford needles, so would wash/reuse them. Let alone not recording Births as Official until they were 8 weeks old, to deflate the infant mortality rate on paper. Also about "ZERO" Homeless, it was illegal to be homeless in the Soviet Union. During Lenin/Stalin they fixed this by creating Communal Housing. Post Stalin it was mostly multi generational house holds, and communal housing. By the 1980s despite all the apartments built some people still lived in communal homes with multiple families. You didn't have a choice, you'd be arrested if you dared live outside the Soviet housing system regardless, and forced to live somewhere by force. So homelessness was masked, because unlike say in the USA if it was like the USSR, the police would literally walk into a shanty town and arrest everyone and force them to live in public housing even if it meant having half a dozen people living in a 1-2 bedroom apartment. Not a great solution but it definitely allows the State to claim Zero homelessness because technically there was no homeless.
1
@mattysav4627 Yes, Autarky, the goal of all Socialist, including the Nazis. After Stalin's death the USSR pushed toward importing food, and not just food but other consumer goods, and that wouldn't change even up to the collapse of the USSR. So if the Socialist goal was self sufficiency, they failed. Yes Russia post USSR did become economically stronger. Again you don't grasp why, and how because you have socialist rose glasses on. And yes, there is far more economic freedom in a free market society. You're mixing up economic security with economic freedom, and ignoring economic mobility entirely. I doubt you could own a Ferrari in the Soviet Union, or a 3-4 bedroom home. I doubt you'd be able to buy a $3000 Dollar high performance computer if you lived in the Soviet Union if the USSR still existed and functioned the same way today as it did then either. Sure, you'd get that 1 Bedroom apartment which you'd have to share with other family members. But security isn't prosperity.
1
@mattysav4627 photos of empty shelves are from the USSR not it's end. Ushanka said it was common in the 80s when he grew up in the USSR to see empty shelves.
1
@mattysav4627 You get to choose your boss in a free market system. 😉 You're not forced to work anywhere you do not want to work. I mean after college I jumped between 4 jobs until I found one I enjoyed and it wasn't even what I went to school for. I wasn't forced to work for someone I didn't like, nor was I a WAGE SLAVE as some idiots say. I mean most of my cousins were farmers by birth, two of them are teachers, one a meteorologist, and another is a successful business owner. Despite being raised literally in dirt, covered in cow crap they didn't want to be farmers, nor are they slaves. Free Market, or Economic Liberalism, Capitalism in practice. 😒
1
@mattysav4627 My father was a truck driver, my mother worked in a warehouse. I despite going to college work in a factory, despite originally going to school to be a teacher. And if you saw my Uncle's farm you wouldn't call him privileged. There is no such thing as wage slavery from my experience. It's a lie used by the lazy and failures to justify being cry babies. I went from a 25 year old green horn, to a machine operator, to middle management in 15 years of dedication and hard work. As my boss said he wished he had 20 more like me. People stay poor because of their own decisions. Unwillingness to chase opportunity, then whine when they're still making minimum wage. As I said, I originally when to college to be a teacher but when raising funds to pay for my schooling I found a far better job than being a teacher would of afforded me. Business do not steal money off their employees as well as you just implied. If that was the chase, no Business would ever go broke. As if they were paying them less than the value of their labor no Business wouldn't failing to make a profit... but being that isn't how it works businesses can go broke as you the employee gets paid regardless whether the business owner makes a profit or not.
1
@mattysav4627 It's factually correct because the Labor Theory of Value was debunked over 140 years ago..... there is literally no such thing as wage slavery. Value of all goods and sevices are subjective. It actually makes calculation of the value of any labor nonthing more than a guessing game as until a product is actually sold there is no money earned. A product may not even sell actually making the worker profitting more than the owner being the owner suffers a net lose while worker still earns. Their is no wage theft. It's a Marxist lie that is still told despite even Marxist like Engels realizing it was no longer true, which is why he didn't write the final volume of Das Krapital. Also there is no end stage of Capitalism... as every generation Marxist claimed they were in the end stage... yet the Liberal Economic system still pushes forward.
1
@mattysav4627 Lenin referred to Imperialism as the Finale Stage of Capitalism, if it's the final then in turn there are no other Stages, which means IT IS THE END STAGE. Even Stalin admitted it when he referred to Fascist Imperialism to be the end stage. Also Imperialism isn't a result of Monopolies. It's a result if Autarky.. NATION'S wanting self sufficiency. No better example than British 17th century colonialism. Britain needed Wood, but required trade to get wood, so established colonies in North America to get wood instead so it wouldn't have to trade Autarky. Some goal as Stalin, same goal as Hitler. Making Autarky is just that, it has nonthing to do with Capitalism as Capitalism loves trade, Autarky is against foreign trade. So ironically it's closer to Socialism. Also Value is Subjective regardless of the Marxist Sense. Value automatically isn't Subjective just because Marxist BELIEVE otherwise as much as the Earth isn't round just because Flat Earthers believe it's flat. It isn't that Subjective value is false, it's just the entire Marxist sense of VALUE is.
1
@mattysav4627 Just did. Laughed my butt off when he devalued the value of labor when trying to counter argue the variation of the value of a laborer. However, he is quite wrong. Rarity and Use Values are subservient to the Subjective Theory of Value. Though Rarity and Use effect Value they're still slaves to the subject views of the buyer REGARDLESS. Best example is the Painting example he uses. Just because it's rare does not mean it's valuable. All paintings done by hand are unique and hold the same Rarity no two paints are the same.. but it's still up to the individual's assessment of the Painting that dictates it's value. Something as simple as a name attached, history or even a subtle flaw can have a huge impact on how someone values it. A rusty sword from 2000 years ago might be priceless to one person and scrap metal to another. It's rarity is off the charts, it's historical value is without question, but I know I'd throw it away. Use value suffers the same flaw. The mud example, mud does have a use value, adobe structures for example, yet perhaps some prefers wood? You could sell them mud, but another person who adores the idea of an adobe home would jump on the opportunity. Again Use is Subservient to Subjective. Then he literally devalued labor value. In an attempt to claim labor time value can easily be calculated, ignoring that even simple jobs like flipping burgers still require skill, and fortitude which can vary greatly from person to person. Making it hard to calculate labor time value. He dumbs it down and dismissed the working man as nonthing more in the modern age as a gear in a machine as if he's never worked a day in his life.... what a joke. There is a reason in my town most people go to the Subway Sandwich shop on the west end of town vs east.... better staff, less f**kups.
1
@mattysav4627 It's not Imperialism it is Autarky. All Socialist regimes are guilty of it. Including China, the Soviet Union and the Fascist. You can not defeat the Free Market without eliminating trade, to eliminate trade requires conquest for the material needed to create Autarky, otherwise all Socialist regimes will be slaves to the established free market as they'll have to trade with that market. It's why Lenin and Stalin exported revolution abroad and even directly invaded many of their neighbors. Make those who have resources allies by regime changes or by literally military force through war. It's why thr Nazis invaded the USSR for grain and oil. All to create Autarky. Makes me wonder if Socialist obsession with Imperialism is a self protection. 🤔
1