The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Death rates spiked:
And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:
When you look at the US Empire and western Europe as having higher quality of life than the USSR, you are looking at the benefits of imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism and wishing the USSR also practiced this, instead of helping liberate colonies and the global south. Russia in particular was a semi-feudal backwater in 1917, and made it to space 5 decades later. The USSR was not the picture of wealth, but was for its time the picture of development and rapid progress.
I don’t really know what you mean by saying you aren’t opposed to socialism when you’re clearly following the Red Scare playbook.
Low-effort, generalized comments on topics I’ve already covered in-depth before get copy/pasted replies, with any necessary tweaks to make more relevant. Contrary to what you’re claiming (with no sources), soviet record-keeping was meticulous, with the soviet archives serving as the basis of all modern historiography worth any salt, both from pro-soviet and anti-soviet historians.
In reality, most soviet citizens wanted to retain the USSR up until the very end:
Moreover, the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. What happened was a crisis in government caused by a coup by the Yeltsin faction, who wished to use their positions to establish a capitalist economy and a dissolution of the soviet system.
You haven’t proven how anything I’ve said is fake, just relied on your own emotional unwillingness to concede that the USSR was ultimately functional and progressive for its time. Is there a particular fact you dispute? Can you offer a counter-source? Without any of those, you’re the Flat Earther in the face of modern historiography.
The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Death rates spiked:
And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:
Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries.
When you look at the US Empire and western Europe as having higher quality of life than the USSR, you are looking at the benefits of imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism and wishing the USSR also practiced this, instead of helping liberate colonies and the global south. Russia in particular was a semi-feudal backwater in 1917, and made it to space 5 decades later. The USSR was not the picture of wealth, but was for its time the picture of development and rapid progress.
I don’t really know what you mean by saying you aren’t opposed to socialism when you’re clearly following the Red Scare playbook.
Removed by mod
Low-effort, generalized comments on topics I’ve already covered in-depth before get copy/pasted replies, with any necessary tweaks to make more relevant. Contrary to what you’re claiming (with no sources), soviet record-keeping was meticulous, with the soviet archives serving as the basis of all modern historiography worth any salt, both from pro-soviet and anti-soviet historians.
In reality, most soviet citizens wanted to retain the USSR up until the very end:
Moreover, the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. What happened was a crisis in government caused by a coup by the Yeltsin faction, who wished to use their positions to establish a capitalist economy and a dissolution of the soviet system.
You haven’t proven how anything I’ve said is fake, just relied on your own emotional unwillingness to concede that the USSR was ultimately functional and progressive for its time. Is there a particular fact you dispute? Can you offer a counter-source? Without any of those, you’re the Flat Earther in the face of modern historiography.