Oh look, blatant historical ignorance to the reasons that led to a failed state. Of course it was intrinsic to the philosophy, absolutely not due to outside interference and manipulation from decades of concentrated effort by the capitalist hegemony.
Look, the state itself as a concept has its issues, but your perspective of the situation is just flat bullshit.
Yes really, it was considered a failure despite those well-documented centuries.
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Yeah. If we had all just fallen in line president delacruz would be fixing shit right now. She was electable if these fucking anarchists would have voted for her!
Failed state (USSR) is when you turn a feudal backwater country (Russian Empire) with a life expectancy of 28 years into the second world industrial power within 50 years and provide universal free healthcare, education, pensions for retirement, eliminate unemployment and homelessness, and you don’t exploit the resources and labour of the global south. Oh, and you save Europe from Nazism, which is what this post was originally about.
In this hypothetical also get to starve millions of people to death and your legacy gets to be sending out late night death squads to kill dissenters. Well, not you. You would never be in charge. You will never be Joseph Stalin, somebody else will be and you will suffer with the rest of the peasants.
Millions of people routinely starved in pre-Soviet Russia and you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Soviets ended hunger after WW2 through the mechanisation of agriculture, as all countries which eliminated hunger did. Suffering famines during civil wars, during Nazi invasion of your territory, and during mass collectivisation processes, isn’t exclusive to the Soviet Union, it’s a rather common thing in preindustrial societies as the Soviet Union was at that time. That’s in opposition to England murdering many millions more of Indians in the Bengal famine during WW2 by purposefully extracting essentially all food from some regions of India.
your legacy gets to be sending out late night death squads to kill dissenters
Thats just, like, your opinion, dude. The legacy of the Soviet Union (a project much greater than a single man who was president for less than 3 decades of the project) saved Europe from Nazism (saving tens if not hundreds of millions of lives in the process), industrialised 300 million people without abusing colonialism and extraction of resources and labour from the global south, rose life expectancy from 28 years to 70, guaranteed free education to the highest level to all women and men of the country, produced the lowest historically recorded levels of inequality in the region, and eliminated homelessness and unemployment.
Stop swallowing and spreading western anticommunist propaganda, the evil is the western empire oppressing billions in the global south, not a country that suffered famines during land collectivisation.
No that’s not accurate. Centralized agricultural planning in pre-soviet Russia was still better than what the Soviets implemented, this was all very well documented that more people died as a result of the changes made.
Centralized agricultural planning in pre-soviet Russia was still better than what the Soviets implemented
Life expectancy was 28 years old before the Bolsheviks, after the land reforms and WW2 life expectancy rose dramatically to 60, what on Earth are you talking about
LMFAO you literally went to the first google link provides on “life expectancy of Russia historic”, the Statista website, and purposefully cherrypicked the two lowest points in the history of the USSR, which coincide with wars they famously didn’t start (first being the civil war, second being WW2).
Why not pick 1930, the second year since land collectivization began, with the 37 years of life expectancy already (higher than at any point during Tsarism)? Why not pick 1940 with 41.5 years of life expectancy before Nazis invaded the USSR and murdered 27 million people?
You’re a fucking joke lmao trying to lie to yourself by cherrypicking the lowest values coinciding with wars imposed on the Soviet Union
Because the better plan has historically always led to a failed state and all of our enemes are cheering it on.
When Anarchists and Tankies are capitalising on a situation the outcomes are as predictable as the Trump Agenda.
Oh look, blatant historical ignorance to the reasons that led to a failed state. Of course it was intrinsic to the philosophy, absolutely not due to outside interference and manipulation from decades of concentrated effort by the capitalist hegemony.
Look, the state itself as a concept has its issues, but your perspective of the situation is just flat bullshit.
deleted by creator
That was also the widespread belief about democracy until the 1700s.
Not really, Greece practiced democracy for hundreds of years and it was pretty well documented.
Pah, Greek democracy was interesting, but very limited given how narrow their Deimos was with women, foreign residents and slaves not counting.
Yes really, it was considered a failure despite those well-documented centuries.
— James Madison, Federalist Papers 10 & 51
Yeah. If we had all just fallen in line president delacruz would be fixing shit right now. She was electable if these fucking anarchists would have voted for her!
Who?
Clearly didnt even read your ballot. Fucking shameful. This is why we’re being ruled by fascists.
Failed state (USSR) is when you turn a feudal backwater country (Russian Empire) with a life expectancy of 28 years into the second world industrial power within 50 years and provide universal free healthcare, education, pensions for retirement, eliminate unemployment and homelessness, and you don’t exploit the resources and labour of the global south. Oh, and you save Europe from Nazism, which is what this post was originally about.
In this hypothetical also get to starve millions of people to death and your legacy gets to be sending out late night death squads to kill dissenters. Well, not you. You would never be in charge. You will never be Joseph Stalin, somebody else will be and you will suffer with the rest of the peasants.
Millions of people routinely starved in pre-Soviet Russia and you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Soviets ended hunger after WW2 through the mechanisation of agriculture, as all countries which eliminated hunger did. Suffering famines during civil wars, during Nazi invasion of your territory, and during mass collectivisation processes, isn’t exclusive to the Soviet Union, it’s a rather common thing in preindustrial societies as the Soviet Union was at that time. That’s in opposition to England murdering many millions more of Indians in the Bengal famine during WW2 by purposefully extracting essentially all food from some regions of India.
Thats just, like, your opinion, dude. The legacy of the Soviet Union (a project much greater than a single man who was president for less than 3 decades of the project) saved Europe from Nazism (saving tens if not hundreds of millions of lives in the process), industrialised 300 million people without abusing colonialism and extraction of resources and labour from the global south, rose life expectancy from 28 years to 70, guaranteed free education to the highest level to all women and men of the country, produced the lowest historically recorded levels of inequality in the region, and eliminated homelessness and unemployment.
Stop swallowing and spreading western anticommunist propaganda, the evil is the western empire oppressing billions in the global south, not a country that suffered famines during land collectivisation.
No that’s not accurate. Centralized agricultural planning in pre-soviet Russia was still better than what the Soviets implemented, this was all very well documented that more people died as a result of the changes made.
Life expectancy was 28 years old before the Bolsheviks, after the land reforms and WW2 life expectancy rose dramatically to 60, what on Earth are you talking about
In 1845 it was 29, in 1920 it was 25, in 1945 it was 23.
They didnt beat 50 until the USSR had been around for 30 years.
LMFAO you literally went to the first google link provides on “life expectancy of Russia historic”, the Statista website, and purposefully cherrypicked the two lowest points in the history of the USSR, which coincide with wars they famously didn’t start (first being the civil war, second being WW2).
Why not pick 1930, the second year since land collectivization began, with the 37 years of life expectancy already (higher than at any point during Tsarism)? Why not pick 1940 with 41.5 years of life expectancy before Nazis invaded the USSR and murdered 27 million people?
You’re a fucking joke lmao trying to lie to yourself by cherrypicking the lowest values coinciding with wars imposed on the Soviet Union
isn’ RSA better than aes? i thought aes’ keyspace was only like 56 bits or something.
edit: i looked it up. aes can take a 256 bit key. i was thinking of DES.
People would have lived longer and healthier if the USSR hadnt starved them.