Does America need a bit of Socialism

[Divair]

Except for those they invaded, killed, oppressed, and whatnot.

I will not defend the invasions or deportations; I will; however, defend the rapid industrialization, as it was necessary to modernize the country in such a short amount of time. If anything, the rapid advancement put an end to the cycle of famines in that part of the world; after 1946, there were no famines in the USSR, and the last one was mostly caused by war-damage.

Which would've happened without the USSR's ideology and oppression.

[Divair]

True enough.

And of course most of those have been stagnant, or in decline since the neo-cons, and the socialist Democrats have taken over. I don't remember the last time I heard about an economic law being passed that wasn't just a handout, or a kickback to someone, or some industry. Nearly everything that has good economic numbers at this point is either being propped up by government monopoly money, or spun by the flawed way the government gathers and presents the data.

"Everything is going to shit and anyone that says otherwise is just manipulating the data."

Why do I even bother?

[United Marxist Nations]

I will not defend the invasions or deportations; I will; however, defend the rapid industrialization, as it was necessary to modernize the country in such a short amount of time. If anything, the rapid advancement put an end to the cycle of famines in that part of the world; after 1946, there were no famines in the USSR, and the last one was mostly caused by war-damage.

Which would've happened without the USSR's ideology and oppression.

Not at the rate which it did. And, it's not exactly like the previous government didn't oppress.

[Yorkopolis]

America needs a fully socialised system in which all businesses have been turned into cooperatives; the arms industry and other key industries (like food, healthcare, etc.) are now cooperatives under guidance of the state and state economic plans, while the rest are cooperatives operating in a market-like setting. Everything is universally provided for by the state and the cooperatives, and there is full-on economic democracy everywhere, as well as a hugely reformed political system.

[Divair]

Which would've happened without the USSR's ideology and oppression.

Not at the rate which it did.

Which you can prove, surely.

And, it's not exactly like the previous government didn't oppress.

Do I look like I support the Tsar?

[Estado Paulista]

America needs a fully socialised system in which all businesses have been turned into cooperatives; the arms industry and other key industries (like food, healthcare, etc.) are now cooperatives under guidance of the state and state economic plans, while the rest are cooperatives operating in a market-like setting. Everything is universally provided for by the state and the cooperatives, and there is full-on economic democracy everywhere, as well as a hugely reformed political system.

No.

[Yorkopolis]

Not at the rate which it did.

Which you can prove, surely.

The tsarist government industrialised at an extremely slow pace, almost so slow that even by the First World War, when most nations were going from agricultural to industrial nations, Russia was still an agricultural empire with, yes, hold your breath, serfdom. Sure, the deportations and purges weren't justified, at all, but the USSR sure did a damned job at industrialisation that the tsarist government could not have done.

And, it's not exactly like the previous government didn't oppress.

Do I look like I support the Tsar?

Nowhere has that been said.

[Yorkopolis]

America needs a fully socialised system in which all businesses have been turned into cooperatives; the arms industry and other key industries (like food, healthcare, etc.) are now cooperatives under guidance of the state and state economic plans, while the rest are cooperatives operating in a market-like setting. Everything is universally provided for by the state and the cooperatives, and there is full-on economic democracy everywhere, as well as a hugely reformed political system.

No.

Do take the time to inform my supposedly un-enlightened mind of the benefits of capitalism and why such a system should not be built?

[United Marxist Nations]

Not at the rate which it did.

Which you can prove, surely.

And, it's not exactly like the previous government didn't oppress.

Do I look like I support the Tsar?

The fact that the Soviet Union alone claimed this feat; there is no way which the previous economy could have industrialized as much as the USSR did in ten years.

[Divair]

Which you can prove, surely.

The tsarist government industrialised at an extremely slow pace, almost so slow that even by the First World War, when most nations were going from agricultural to industrial nations, Russia was still an agricultural empire with, yes, hold your breath, serfdom. Sure, the deportations and purges weren't justified, at all, but the USSR sure did a damned job at industrialisation that the tsarist government could not have done.

I'm confused. When did I ever mention I support the Tsar?

[Divair]

Which you can prove, surely.


Do I look like I support the Tsar?

The fact that the Soviet Union alone claimed this feat; there is no way which the previous economy could have industrialized as much as the USSR did in ten years.

Seriously, people, when did I mention I support the Tsar? Do you honestly think hating the USSR = love the Tsar?

[United Marxist Nations]

The tsarist government industrialised at an extremely slow pace, almost so slow that even by the First World War, when most nations were going from agricultural to industrial nations, Russia was still an agricultural empire with, yes, hold your breath, serfdom. Sure, the deportations and purges weren't justified, at all, but the USSR sure did a damned job at industrialisation that the tsarist government could not have done.

I'm confused. When did I ever mention I support the Tsar?

You said that it would have industrialized without the USSR, that implies that it would have industrialized with a Tsar.

[United Marxist Nations]

The fact that the Soviet Union alone claimed this feat; there is no way which the previous economy could have industrialized as much as the USSR did in ten years.

Seriously, people, when did I mention I support the Tsar? Do you honestly think hating the USSR = love the Tsar?

See my above post.

[Divair]

I'm confused. When did I ever mention I support the Tsar?

You said that it would have industrialized without the USSR, that implies that it would have industrialized with a Tsar.

That's a strawman.

[United Marxist Nations]

You said that it would have industrialized without the USSR, that implies that it would have industrialized with a Tsar.

That's a strawman.

How?

[Yorkopolis]

The tsarist government industrialised at an extremely slow pace, almost so slow that even by the First World War, when most nations were going from agricultural to industrial nations, Russia was still an agricultural empire with, yes, hold your breath, serfdom. Sure, the deportations and purges weren't justified, at all, but the USSR sure did a damned job at industrialisation that the tsarist government could not have done.

I'm confused. When did I ever mention I support the Tsar?

Welp, my mistake. Well, I do not precisely know what would have happened if the Socialists-Revolutionaries had taken power instead of the Bolsheviks, and if they would have industrialised as fast, especially considering their narodnik philosophy. But still, I guess we may never know.

[Divair]

That's a strawman.

How?

Actually, more importantly, it's a false dilemma.

[Yorkopolis]

The fact that the Soviet Union alone claimed this feat; there is no way which the previous economy could have industrialized as much as the USSR did in ten years.

Seriously, people, when did I mention I support the Tsar? Do you honestly think hating the USSR = love the Tsar?

Welp, my mistake.

[Escasia]

It was in the interests of the whole country that the USSR's economy should advance.

Only if you suppose that the USSR was anything other than a highly centralized capitalist economy with a love of marxist rhetoric, especially by the 1930s.

I won't deny though, they provided some nice goodies to workers for a while that they wouldn't have gotten elsewhere.

America needs a fully socialised system in which all businesses have been turned into cooperatives; the arms industry and other key industries (like food, healthcare, etc.) are now cooperatives under guidance of the state and state economic plans, while the rest are cooperatives operating in a market-like setting. Everything is universally provided for by the state and the cooperatives, and there is full-on economic democracy everywhere, as well as a hugely reformed political system.

No.

I agree, that's nowhere near far enough.

[United Marxist Nations]

How?

Actually, more importantly, it's a false dilemma.

Don't even mention the provisional government, it continued the First World War, and largely had the "Socialist Revolutionaries", which were in-favor of Narodnik philosophy, which is centered around an agrarian society.

[Divair]

Seriously, people, when did I mention I support the Tsar? Do you honestly think hating the USSR = love the Tsar?

Welp, my mistake.

At least you're willing to admit that.

[Divair]

Actually, more importantly, it's a false dilemma.

Don't even mention the provisional government, it continued the First World War, and largely had the "Socialist Revolutionaries", which were in-favor of Narodnik philosophy, which is centered around an agrarian society.

Still a false dilemma.

[United Marxist Nations]

Don't even mention the provisional government, it continued the First World War, and largely had the "Socialist Revolutionaries", which were in-favor of Narodnik philosophy, which is centered around an agrarian society.

Still a false dilemma.

What, then, was the other option? This isn't some fantasy where you can put whatever ideology you want at the helm of the Russian Revolution; we're talking about history.

[Yorkopolis]

Actually, more importantly, it's a false dilemma.

Don't even mention the provisional government, it continued the First World War, and largely had the "Socialist Revolutionaries", which were in-favor of Narodnik philosophy, which is centered around an agrarian society.

Well, the Socialists-Revolutionaries were favourable over the Bolsheviks. They encouraged democracy and were against political oppression of fellow socialists (a plus I must say). Besides that, there was nothing in the Socialists-Revolutionaries which aimed against industrialisation. They were for the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of socialism. Though, their agrarianism might have gotten in the way sooner or later, I do believe they were one of the positive forces in the revolution.

[Divair]

Still a false dilemma.

What, then, was the other option? This isn't some fantasy where you can put whatever ideology you want at the helm of the Russian Revolution; we're talking about history.

Constitutional monarchy with a new royal family, or a social democratic republic (my preferred choice). The USSR isn't some special snowflake in history that managed to industrialize quickly because of its ideology. And it doesn't excuse its oppression. You can industrialize quickly without Stalinism.