Instead of arguing "If only they didn't do this" why don't Leninists ever ask "Why did they do this?"The USSR arguably, turned out to be the most pathetic, loser country in human history. It's own elites sold out the ENTIRE COUNTRY for a Pizza Restaurant. I mean, even tinpot fucking dictatorships went down fighting, Soviet Leadership basically went on TV and started sucking Capitalist cock and making ahegao face in front of their entire population. Even Hitler had the shame to put a gun in his mouth for his failures.Why did the USSR turn out this way? Why did a literal SUPERPOWER, that even with it's issues, actually was largely pretty stable, had low debt etc, cuck itself out of existence in the most humiliating fashion of arguably, any country in history?So obviously, something was very wrong about the USSR at it's core, the fact that tinpot subsaharan african shitholes have lasted longer than the USSR at this point, as well, says something.Beyond just "Communism bad" because frankly, that doesn't explain anything, nor does really economics, far more economic basketcases last far longer, what structurally went wrong with the USSR that made it the most pathetic nation in human history?
>>18438669Lithuania was the first to secede from the USSR. So I think our factor was also important here.
>>18438669>>18438679No physical evidence for battle of Stalingrad
>>18438669Reminder the USSR depended on imported grains from the US from as early as the 60's.
>>18438669Deranged talking points.
>>18438714And Moscow depended on the import of Lithuanian sausages.
>>18438669First, Lenin adapted a short term policy, betting in world revolution. That fucked hard the SU.Then, Stalin adopted a short term policy, betting in a repeat of WW1, where France and Germany would wreck each other and then the SU would roll over western Europe with minimal casulities. This assumptions turned out to be totally wrong and fucked the SUThen, after WW2, Stalin adopted a short term policy, betting in a soon to happen economic depression, followed by revolutions and soviet intervention. For this, instead of rebuilding the country, Stalin kept a war economy and sacrificed diplomatic influence to consolidate territorial gains. This turned to be wrong and fucked the SUAnd then we got Kruschev (Retard), Brezhnev (Retard), and Gorbachev (Utter retard). They all happened because Stalin's policy of killing any non-retard
>>18438748>Stalin's policy of killing any non-retardI think this is the single biggest problem for USSR long term. Stalin killed EVERYBODY.
>>18438669The USSR was created by Jews, Georgians, Armenians, and Ukrainians. One very stupid Georgian killed all of his comrades for his own indulgence and lust for power. After his death, the USSR was ruled by rustards, and you know the rest of the story. On the side note, it's incredibly funny how rustards nowadays try to expose Khruschev, Brezhnev etc as Ukrainians or Jews, which is just pure bullshit. But you can't blame mentally ill people - they also believe that the Romanovs are actually Russians and totally not germoids from the Oldenburgs.
>>18438917>and UkrainiansI thought they didn't exist before 1991
>>18438967Meme.>Poltava (Russian: «Пoлтaвa») is a narrative poem written by Aleksandr Pushkin in 1828–29 about the involvement of the Ukrainian Cossack hetman Ivan Mazepa in the 1709 Battle of Poltava between Sweden and Russia.Literal words from the poem: 'Ukrainian night is so silent' (Tихa yкpaинcкaя нoчь). And Pushkin is a Russian Byron. I'll let you do the math.
>>18438669Because its a jewish construct, moron. Its intended this way from the beginning. Russia was always and will always be a white nigger country run by a shitty jewish oligarchy, whether its ran by (((boyars))), (((bureaucrats))) or (((putinists))).
>>18438669>Why did they do thisThe administrative (NOT command, administrative) economy wasn't working. When a new class of bureaucratic elites that had never known the days of Lenin or early Stalin came into power, they had nowhere the same belief in marxism-leninism that the older political elites had. They were yes-men who only wanted to further their careers. As such, they didn't really care about socializing the means of production. What they wanted was to quell the unrest and manage a country without risking to loose their position. This is how people like Gorbachev came into power : they were young, were pragmatic, and weren't orthodox. So when the august coup attempt was formed by hardliners, the most progressive faction which had initially supported Gorbachev in his reform attempts (like Yeltsin) quickly radicalized and considered the Union to be unsalvageable. They opposed Gorbachev's plan for a new union which won the referendum, and signed secretly a deal to dislocate the different "republics" which composed the Union. >what structurally went wrongThe Soviet Union existed to apply communism. The whole point of its existence, of the alliance between the republics, of the Party handling everything, of the economy being centralized etc was to achieve communism. The problem, however, is that the economic conditions required to actually transition to a communist society, or at least to a developed socialist one, were never really put in place. Socialization of the means of production only extended to state-ownership, which in practice meant really different things.After Stalin had purged so many during his reign, most of the politburo were pragmatists who only cared in delivering results and keeping their power. This prompted to implement reforms like the Kosygin one, which introduced market mechanisms and gave more autonomy to the factory managers, or like the Kruschev's sovnarkhy reforms(cont)
>>18439214(cont)So, in the 1970s, the picture was essentially the following : the economy had stopped being an attempt at extensive socialization, and had instead reverted to pseudo-capitalist economy in which the Party had power over everything. In practice this meant that there was a giant monopoly on the economy which worked to produce profits towards the central Party, rather than delivering a for-use economy. This, however, was deeply irrational. It didn't make sense for a lithuanian farmer or a ukrainian steel-worker to accept a less functional economy than the one in the west for no apparent purpose than lies about building socialism, something which everyone knew about. The state tried to repress this, and fought back against the prague spring, the hungarian revolt, nationalist dissent, and blocked all sources of information.But by the late 1980s it was too late. Gorbachev gets into power after a brief period under a competent leader (Andropov) and decides to reform the system to allow a more functional economy. The perestroika scares the hardliners, which attempt a coup, which fails but deeply scares the most progressive faction.
>>18439219>>18439219I do wonder what Andropov would have been like if he didn't have diabetes and died so early.From his short time in power, seemed more like the Soviet Xi. But I also suspect the USSR was too far gone ideologically, especially as the Nomenklatura basically had free reign to act like psuedo-capitalists for 30 years at that point.
>>18440024On one hand, Andropov seems smart (and certainly was smarter than Gorbachev). On the other, he was the one who told Brezhnev to get into Afghanistan, and that it would be just a quick affair. So he was also capable of miscalculating and fucking shit up
>>18438967They did. Russian empire censuses differentiated between Great, Little and White Russians so Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians as different ethnic groups. Ukrainians were much more widespread back then living in Kursk, Kuban, Northern Kazakhstan and Vladivostok region
>>18438669>Beyond just "Communism bad" because frankly, that doesn't explain anything, nor does really economicsEconomics are an important factor though. The USSR (funny enough) needed foreign hard currency for trade which it obtained by selling oil, but by the late 1980s it didn't have $$$ no mo because there was a global price collapse, that did really hard damage. Gorby's reforms were also incoherent but there was a lot of general weirdness about the Soviet Union. It was a technically and deteriorating state for a decade prior, but not really a modern state to begin with as much as an amalgamation of enterprises and petty regional baronies tied to the repressive and controlling functions of the party, while the planning was always some very generation direction, subsidies, controlling exchange, stuff like that. But also a total lack of real corporate law (and real law in general) which meant that random people could command directors of firms to do whatever they wanted in a very random fashion.Was really hard to reform. Gorby couldn't do it because departments / vested interests didn't want to lose funds. The welfare system was also tied to your workplace. Also serious social problems with alcoholism, this is not a joke, it was a radical problem, like senior party leaders literally drinking themselves to death. (Probably is what killed Stalin, read Milovan Djilas' "Conversations With Stalin," they would stay up all night eating and getting loaded while deciding the fate of the world, Tito was aghast.) A lot of crazy kleptocratic stuff going on. A large share of the men also served in the army which was absolutely awful, and a noticeable share of males spent time in jail because of their drunk antics.For all the weirdness of "communism," I think a lot of it was realy shaped by total war. Like fascism, it was essentially produced by WWI, and then it went through WWII, hence the autarky and militarized structure:https://youtu.be/c6Mx2mxpaCY
>>18438669The Soviet Union was a little like the Roman Empire in a way where it had an extremely fragile political system dependent on constant expansion to keep it together
