The plenty of the Communist bourgeois and the deprivation of the common people certainly were. The Party members could drive Mercedes if they wanted while the regular people could only dream about a Lada, could enjoy fancy French wines while the common people wait in bread lines, and meet over cigars while the common people were deprived even of the benefit of union representation, as all unions were turned into agents of the state.
No, you just want me to defend the Russian fascist kleptocracy and I’m not interested in it. Both fascism and communism are examples of oppression of the people. The Russian kleptocracy being even worse than the Soviet Empire was, in terms of economic outcomes of their people, is largely because the Russians don’t have imperial subjects to exploit any more, outside their reduced borders, and because they’re even less competent than the Soviets were. Both governments are/were trash, and anyone supporting either government is a scumbag.
Why would I want you to defend a piece of shit like Putin? I responded to your completely vibes-based comment about how the poor were so oppressed by the party with solid data to show that the Soviet Union had the most dramatic inversion of wealth inequality of any country in history.
As a response, you first want to ignore it and pivot to comparing the wealth of a union that took over an underdeveloped feudal backwater and lived under constant siege to the most wealthy country in history. Then, when called on that, you want to instead pivot to talking about Putin.
It’s almost as if one nation emerged out of a semi-feudalist system and the other was heavily industrialized and the continuation of the enslavement of Africans (these slavers being proudly hailed and printed on currency to this day). I seem to remember a certain Soviet leader saying something about having to complete 100 years of development in a short amount of time to catch up with these nations. Never mind that Soviet citizens were more easily able to obtain their means of subsistence, and thus wages can’t be looked at myopically.
Strange how you condemn fascism and communism (polar opposites, as I demonstrated here) then uphold (by dishonest comparison, of which was already demonstrated by the extreme decrease of inequality under Soviet rule, although naturally you were unable to understand how this challenged your point) the system that birthed Nazism [1] [2].
So all those price controls under the soviet Union were just them oppressing their citizens?
The plenty of the Communist bourgeois and the deprivation of the common people certainly were. The Party members could drive Mercedes if they wanted while the regular people could only dream about a Lada, could enjoy fancy French wines while the common people wait in bread lines, and meet over cigars while the common people were deprived even of the benefit of union representation, as all unions were turned into agents of the state.
Yeah real repression of the poor here. This is exactly what you expect to see when the poor is repressed.
Yes. Fascism is also bad. I know, it’s amazing. Why don’t you compare the average income of the Soviet working class and the American one, eh?
So now that you’ve seen data you just want to change the subject lol
I can show you that data if you want but you’re just going to ignore that too aren’t you?
No, you just want me to defend the Russian fascist kleptocracy and I’m not interested in it. Both fascism and communism are examples of oppression of the people. The Russian kleptocracy being even worse than the Soviet Empire was, in terms of economic outcomes of their people, is largely because the Russians don’t have imperial subjects to exploit any more, outside their reduced borders, and because they’re even less competent than the Soviets were. Both governments are/were trash, and anyone supporting either government is a scumbag.
Why would I want you to defend a piece of shit like Putin? I responded to your completely vibes-based comment about how the poor were so oppressed by the party with solid data to show that the Soviet Union had the most dramatic inversion of wealth inequality of any country in history.
As a response, you first want to ignore it and pivot to comparing the wealth of a union that took over an underdeveloped feudal backwater and lived under constant siege to the most wealthy country in history. Then, when called on that, you want to instead pivot to talking about Putin.
Get it together friend.
Yes, when empires collapse, there’s often a depression. Even in their colonies.
There’s no way you’re this dense this must be a bit
It’s almost as if one nation emerged out of a semi-feudalist system and the other was heavily industrialized and the continuation of the enslavement of Africans (these slavers being proudly hailed and printed on currency to this day). I seem to remember a certain Soviet leader saying something about having to complete 100 years of development in a short amount of time to catch up with these nations. Never mind that Soviet citizens were more easily able to obtain their means of subsistence, and thus wages can’t be looked at myopically.
Strange how you condemn fascism and communism (polar opposites, as I demonstrated here) then uphold (by dishonest comparison, of which was already demonstrated by the extreme decrease of inequality under Soviet rule, although naturally you were unable to understand how this challenged your point) the system that birthed Nazism [1] [2].