skye

you're a bit of tex as?

i believe your brain needs a lil' workout, since you're accusing people of things that aren't even there.

so it'd be funny if i did not elaborate

again, projecting much?

projecting much?

if you're brave enough this is not a difference

I whole-heartedly agree with socialism and replacing capitalism. I disagree with the notion that USSR and it's satellite states implemented it properly. I wouldn't want to live in a state that actively criminalised homosexuality, implemented anti-semitic policies in education, and did not allow (in practice) freedom of religion. Maybe if the USSR had the chance to cool down into actual socialism it wouldn't have had the issues mentioned above. But looking at how things unfolded, it failed for a reason.

P.S: I do appreciate the actual sources, and upon some reading I did clear out some misconceptions I had about my country under soviet rule

not 60+, just meant to say "in the case of my country"

At the core of a system that claimed it's socialist, but kept spiraling more and more into totalitarianism and oppression? Yeah.

Upon further reading, it does seem I was mistaken in saying that the infrastructure built was miserable. However, in my case, it started spiraling downwards long before the capitalism took over.

Aren't you people here also ignoring the misery people suffered only to look at the benefits of the core?

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

at least where I am from it seems the represeion and punishment was for anyone that was anti-communist. This includes anyone with left-leaning views.

Anyway, it seems that most of your comment does hold up. However, looking deeper into the why of the statistics, it kind of seems grim.

(Unless otherwise specified, I will be speaking of where I live)

For example, the rise of birth rates is owed to aggressive natalist policies, abortion bans, and legal discrimination against childless people. These resulted in a short-term population boom, and then in a massive decline due to many deaths caused by illegal abortions. I believe coercing people into having children, and not letting people have control over their bodies is messed up.

Another one: In the aftermath of an earthquake, a lot of monuments, historically significant buildins, and even an important railway station were set up for demolition. A lot of them were demolished, despite being in very good condition. Another tactic that was employed was intentional neglect and abandonment, to justify demolition.

A lot of growth did happen here though. But the debt had to be repaid, so rationalisation came into effect. This led into a massively lowered living standard, a lot of cut corners which were public hazards, and general discontent.

Towards the end of the regime, it grew more and more totalitarian, censorship was widespread, and any form of protest was stomped out. Arrests and terrorising of protesters & their families. And it all eventually culminated into a bloody revolution.

So yes, there were benefits, but as far as I seem to read from history, it was very hard to maintain, and it came at the cost of more and more social liberties.

I see.

My main point was limited to Europe and vicinity of the USSR. I did not mean for it to come off as dehumanising.

I am more than aware of the faults and harm or capitalism, I am aware of how colonialism wrecked anything in it's path.

To clarify: I was trying to explain how my country was poor, exploited and abused under soviet rule. I was trying to point out how these things did not just magically start after a change of regime, and that they were not happening before.

Thank you for the clarification