Tankie fuckwits only have one answer to every failure: “It wasn’t pure enough”
Not unlike Christofascists and other conservatives.
What you mean, communism has never been truly tried…like ever. No one has ever tried communism. That’s why it’s never failed.
/S
Communism as described by marx is kinda impossible to implement as a nation so depending on how you define “communism” yeah that’s literally true. States that currently call themselves communist are (as a majority) just obviously not. Unless you think we should call north korea democratic there clearly comes a point where just asserting you are something is obviously untrue and for a lot of communists russia and china fall past that line.
“If everyone had just laid down and obeyed the Great Leader Stalin, we would be on the road to communism right now!”
Idk that was a fairly balanced an introspective answer. Not really sure it belongs here.
“Truth is, soviet union broke due to 3 decades of revisionism they went into after death of stalin”
“Soviet socialism was a big success”
“By the mid-80s, the Soviet economy had problems but none of them were catastrophic”
“I do think as late as the Andropov era, the leadership in the USSR had a good understanding of their problems and were starting to put the country on a better path”
All are insane tankie statements. For reference, Andropov was a hardliner from the KGB who decided that the REAL problem of the Soviet Union was that the People’s Proletariat™ wasn’t being worked hard enough and that Soviet citizens had too many rights which made it too difficult for the poor, put-upon, all-consuming state apparatus to do its job, and the correct response to this was to squeeze the Soviet people harder, presumably in the hopes of extracting blood from a stone.
An acknowledgement that collapse is multifaceted and complicated is pretty introspective. While I wouldn’t agree with the quotes there it reads, to me, as someone showing their bias; which everyone has, even if ours is not with the USSR.
At least I just can’t read the statement and feel that it is so absurd as to highlight.
Saying that the collapse of a superpower is multifaceted and complex is not a particularly deep or introspective view. Saying that the collapse of a superpower is specific and simple would be an exceptionally shallow view, but that doesn’t make the reverse indicative of genuine analysis.
Mourning that Stalin’s death put reformists like Khrushchev and fucking Brezhnev into power, and if they had only put another decade and a half of a throwback hardliner like Andropov in, the USSR would’ve been on their way to solve their problems, and that hardliners like Andropov who believed that the Soviet people were just not being oppressed enough to extract the necessary value from them had a “good understanding of their problems” and “were starting to put the country on a better path” is definitely absurd enough to highlight.
Fuck, man, how is “If only the Soviet Union’s leaders were more like Stalin, in the good old days, they would have been able to solve their problems (and recreate the Great Successes that Stalin managed to achieve)” not absurd?
I should’ve cut the middle, honestly.
Saying that the collapse of a superpower is multifaceted and complex is not a particularly deep or introspective view.
Sure, and its also how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views. We are all should be expanding our understanding of the world around us. We are all at different places in how we see and understand things. I see this comm more as a highlight of stubbornness. I have not bummped into that particular user before, so maybe I am reading to much (little?) into it. I wouldn’t want to close someone off to further examining their biases; which is a hard thing to even start doing.
and if they had only put another decade and a half of a throwback hardliner like Andropov in, the USSR would’ve been on their way to solve their problems
And that is entirely possible, tho I am not interested in discussing alt history for any topic.
Sure, and its also how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views.
In the same way that learning to read is how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views, but I don’t praise neonazis for basic literacy. Likewise, many people who learn to read never develop deeper and more introspective views.
Saying “Geopolitical events are complex” is not a particularly telling precursor to deeper thought. Even most MAGA knuckle-draggers understand that much.
And that is entirely possible, tho I am not interested in discussing alt history for any topic.
So how would you react if someone said “Nazism had great successes. Germany went off the rails when they got rid of Hitler. The fall of the Third Reich was complex and multifaceted, but if only the Socialist Reich Party wasn’t banned and came to power for the next 20 years to restore Hitler’s legacy, Germany’s problems would have been well on their way to being solved!”
Would that provoke, likewise, a neutral reaction? Or rather, would you come into a comm about recording neonazi insanity and opt that you don’t know why such a statement is strange or objectionable, that it ultimately was really balanced statement and just showed a bit of bias (which we all have), and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world?
Or would it evoke some manner of revulsion, or disgust?
Aliens could also show up. There is no point in alt history.
The question isn’t of ‘alt history’, but of stated values. You are not being asked “Do you think this is likely or unlikely, and why?”, you are being asked “What kind of values are being expressed by this analysis and this judgement, in the same way that there’s no point to conspiracy theories but someone talking about how the Jews run the world is very likely antisemitic”
So I ask again:
So how would you react if someone said “Nazism had great successes. Germany went off the rails when they got rid of Hitler. The fall of the Third Reich was complex and multifaceted, but if only the Socialist Reich Party wasn’t banned and came to power for the next 20 years to restore Hitler’s legacy, Germany’s problems would have been well on their way to being solved!”
Would that provoke, likewise, a neutral reaction? Or rather, would you come into a comm about recording neonazi insanity and opt that you don’t know why such a statement is strange or objectionable, that it ultimately was really balanced statement and just showed a bit of bias (which we all have), and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world?
Or would it evoke some manner of revulsion, or disgust?
Andropov’s death absolutely sped up the decline of the USSR, even if only by delaying any possible reforms.
Then Chernenko dying immediately after meant Gorbachev was dealing with an overcentralized bureaucracy that was absolutely reeling, instead of one slowly bleeding from a death by a thousand cuts. Gorbachev’s attempts to reform were decades too late by all accounts, so I think they’re making a pretty straightforward interpretation of what’s fairly accepted about the dissolution of the USSR.
Andropov’s death absolutely sped up the decline of the USSR, even if only by delaying any possible reforms.
Andropov’s death… delayed possible reforms.
Are you being fucking serious right now?
Then Chernenko dying immediately after meant Gorbachev was dealing with an overcentralized bureaucracy that was absolutely reeling, instead of one slowly bleeding from a death by a thousand cuts.
Reeling from what?
Gorbachev’s attempts to reform were decades too late by all accounts, so I think they’re making a pretty straightforward interpretation of what’s fairly accepted about the dissolution of the USSR.
“Truth is, soviet union broke due to 3 decades of revisionism they went into after death of stalin”
Yes, sounds very much like an individual who thinks that the issue was that reform wasn’t started soon enough.
Do you ever pass up a chance to bootlick for tankies? It’s all you ever seem to do. Red boot leather must be especially delicious.
