Wait, you’re telling me that a preindustrial society, the successor state to an empire that had 10 famines a century, had one last famine during some failed policy of land collectivisation and then ended hunger for 300 million people? How does that make the USSR look bad?
First of all, the process of dekulakization was only state-directed, but it was primarily peasant-enforced. There were some guidelines to the process, but it was poor peasants who organized themselves, who decided which kulaks to expropriate, and who oversaw the process. But the poor peasants were so extreme towards kulaks because of how they had been exploited by them, that the soviet government had to introduce maximum quotas of percentage of kulaks per region, in order to prevent poor peasants from going overboard.
Additionally, the elimination of Kulaks didn’t mean the elimination of each individual Kulak, it meant the elimination of the social class. A kulak getting a death sentence (or, more commonly, being killed by the poor peasants) was a rare thing, and forced relocation to Eastern territories was a much more common penalty. The vast majority of Kulaks survived dekulakization. But you couldn’t bother to read a book and your here spouting ahistorical nonsense.
Because they continue what they have historically done: outsourcing the most extreme poverty and suffering to the countries they exploit for resources.
You do know that hunger and malnutrition in the US impacts millions of people every year, and Cuba has eliminated food insecurity for its entire population, right?
And aren’t Sweden and Denmark famously more socialist than other developed countries?
Edit: also I find it interesting that Socialism is judged by the worst example you could find, but Capitalism can only be judged by “well functioning countries”. US is peak Capitalism, it is exactly the direction Capitalism goes towards.
All capitalist countries are well-functioning, it’s just some are exploiters and some are exploited. But that’s not a malfunction, that’s there by design.
Or, to quote Chomsky:
We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed…experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone.
Exporting your poverty and starvation to foreign countries where you super-exploit and plunder does not mean that the cause isn’t with the “well functioning Capitalist country.”
Removed by mod
Oh you mean like is currently happening right now without socialism?
I think they’re referring more to historical events. Like the great depression and the dust bowl.
Removed by mod
Wait, you’re telling me that a preindustrial society, the successor state to an empire that had 10 famines a century, had one last famine during some failed policy of land collectivisation and then ended hunger for 300 million people? How does that make the USSR look bad?
Removed by mod
Again with the ahistorical bullshit.
First of all, the process of dekulakization was only state-directed, but it was primarily peasant-enforced. There were some guidelines to the process, but it was poor peasants who organized themselves, who decided which kulaks to expropriate, and who oversaw the process. But the poor peasants were so extreme towards kulaks because of how they had been exploited by them, that the soviet government had to introduce maximum quotas of percentage of kulaks per region, in order to prevent poor peasants from going overboard.
Additionally, the elimination of Kulaks didn’t mean the elimination of each individual Kulak, it meant the elimination of the social class. A kulak getting a death sentence (or, more commonly, being killed by the poor peasants) was a rare thing, and forced relocation to Eastern territories was a much more common penalty. The vast majority of Kulaks survived dekulakization. But you couldn’t bother to read a book and your here spouting ahistorical nonsense.
Better luck next time.
Isn’t happening in well functioning capitalist countries
Because they continue what they have historically done: outsourcing the most extreme poverty and suffering to the countries they exploit for resources.
You do know that hunger and malnutrition in the US impacts millions of people every year, and Cuba has eliminated food insecurity for its entire population, right?
If not, now you do.
Removed by mod
That’s not data, that’s a newspaper article. Come back with serious sources.
Removed by mod
Give us the numbers, my dude.
He literally countered a baseless claim, which would have the burden of proof and could have been dismissed, and you still want more?
I said well functioning.
I don’t consider the US well functioning by any metric
I agree, which countries do you consider well functioning?
Canada, Sweden Denmark Australia
7 million Canadians going hungry under capitalism: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/new-food-banks-canada-research-shows-7-million-canadians-report-going-hungry-833281882.html
And aren’t Sweden and Denmark famously more socialist than other developed countries?
Edit: also I find it interesting that Socialism is judged by the worst example you could find, but Capitalism can only be judged by “well functioning countries”. US is peak Capitalism, it is exactly the direction Capitalism goes towards.
All capitalist countries are well-functioning, it’s just some are exploiters and some are exploited. But that’s not a malfunction, that’s there by design.
Or, to quote Chomsky:
Exporting your poverty and starvation to foreign countries where you super-exploit and plunder does not mean that the cause isn’t with the “well functioning Capitalist country.”
Missing the panel where anyone asked for your opinion
Removed by mod
You’re literally posting liberal nonsense in a leftist community