[wraith261]

Posted by me in another thread

A poll on a Russian website from back in 1999 when the country was still trying to climb itself out of the pit that it had dug the previous decades. When Iraq was in chaos there was a poll that said Iraqis thought they had a better life under Saddam. Given the comparison at that time they probably did but that doesn't mean life under Saddam was a joy.


***

Why do you persist in this? Marxists.org is not a blog, it is a collection of academic material relating to Marxism and socialism.

It is not a valid source. It's an ideological reference website where various people contribute.

The figures aggregated there are from Japan's Hokkaido University, Russia's State Economical University, and the CIA.

The 9/11 CT websites also have many articles and "facts" written by Professors, engineers and so forth. It doesn't mean anything.

Neither of which provided any figures showing any poverty.

It's difficult to get reliable stats from a closed, oppressive (and now extinct) Communist Republic. Are you claiming that the BCC and Britannica are simply propaganda outlets. Was the fact that the Soviets had to reform their economy true and that their economy collapsed true or is that propaganda as well?

I'm not even sure you know what economic problems it had.

Strange considering I've stated them and sourced them.

I've touched upon them, but it seems like you hardly read my posts

Because your source is absolutely laughable and the history of what happened in the USSR in the late 80s/early 90s combined with common sense simply don't mirror what you've been saying.

You and I are primarily ideological allies (at least compared to ingliz)

Yes, I've noticed that too which is why I'm so stunned that you're using these kinds of tactics with these kinds of lame sources. This is normally what norapture, ingliz or Qatzel would do.

Poverty did not exist, and living standards had been improving.

Poverty did not exist....except they were sliding into poverty and they had food shortages.

North Korea's military is also furnished with dilapidated and decades old weapons systems.

And they are starting a nuclear program and have ballistic missles.

The Soviets were constantly designing and delivering new advanced weapons systems and maintained the world's largest military in human and material terms.

Which is ultimately what drove their country to failure. They poured too much of their money into the military and let their overall economy go to hell.

It is impossible to be a military giant without the economic means to produce large quantities of highly sophisticated military hardware.

In oppressive one party socieites it's very easy to take a bulk of your money to shore up a huge military with research and development. Especially if you're in an arms race with a wealthier nation that's increasing it's military spending. What are the people going to do about it?

If someone posted an authoritative source saying the USA was sliding into poverty, wouldn't you ask for figures?

Not if the US government was forced to make drastic economic changes and if the US economy had already collapsed and the country had broke apart. Common sense would indicate that their were some very serious money problems at hand.

[ingliz]

If you read the links you will see that the polls are from 2005. The quoted poll is from 1999 as some idiot had said Yeltsin was a beacon of freedom and democracy and I was trying to show that even Andropov was better than that drunkard. Brezhnev came second in that poll, didn't that give you a clue it wasn't the poll I was talking about? Read what is posted before making inane comments, try not to come across as a complete fool

[wraith261]

The quoted poll is from 1999 as some idiot had said Yeltsin was a beacon of freedom and democracy

Yes, what a stupid thing to say. Nevermind that Yeltsin was elected and ran against opposing candidates. The people in that coup attempt, those were the real people who wanted true Democratic reforms.

Read what is posted before making inane comments,

I would think an inane comment would be claiming an opinion poll outweighs actual facts.

try not to come across as a complete fool

I always like to post in the same sensual spirit as the person I'm replying to.

[SF edit: Quotes added. Please use the quote tags for quoted material.]

[ingliz]

I would think an inane comment would be claiming an opinion poll outweighs actual facts.

The facts are that the USSR's economy had sustained continuous growth since the 20's, you have not provided any statistics that dispute this.

You said in the last years of Soviet rule the people were living in poverty. Russians who lived under Brezhnev's rule disagree with you, I posted a poll which asked Russians how they felt about the Brezhnev years.

If both the facts and public sentiment refute your 'argument' then give it up as you cannot defend it.

[wraith261]

The facts are that the USSR's economy had sustained continuous growth since the 20's, you have not provided any statistics that dispute this.

Actually I have, you have just chosen to ignore it.

Brezhnev’s unceasing buildup of his defense and aerospace industries left other sectors of the economy increasingly deprived of funds. Soviet agriculture, consumer-goods industries, and health-care services declined throughout the 1970s and early ’80s as a consequence, resulting in shortages and declining standards of living.
Encyclopedia Brittanica http://tinyurl.com/43fado

Russians who lived under Brezhnev's rule disagree with you,

You can make an opinion poll turn out anyway you want depending on who you talk to and Russia still isn't exactly known for having an open and free press. Regardless there's a difference between opinion polls and facts.

If both the facts and public sentiment refute your 'argument' then give it up as you cannot defend it.

Sorry but the facts are overwhelmingly on my side. You remind me of a 9/11 CT; you cherrypick data and then ignore the gaping holes in your logic. Again, my three questions....

1) Why did both the BBC and Britannica say the USSR was sliding into poverty? Are they both propaganda pieces as well?

2) If everything was so wonderful then why did the Soviet government have to enact drastic economic reforms in the 80s?

3) In the 1990s, why didn't the country just revert back to the glorious benefits of communism that they had under Brezhnev if everyone thought they had it so wonderful?

I'll await your brilliant answers with a lustful yearning.

[SF edit: Quote tags added. Please use the quote tags for quoted material.]

[Frank_Carbonni]

Wraith,

Just because the Soviet economy was growing doesn't mean it wasn't very inefficient or that it couldn't have done better under capitalism.

The main problem with the Soviet economy was that the growth was almost entirely in the heavy industry and mineral extraction sectors while there was little development in high technology (outside of military uses), consumer goods, and the service sector.

Also, Soviet goods were notorious for their lousy quality and lack of variety.

Merely admitting that there was some growth doesn't mean it was superior.

Overall, North Korea is far more developed now than it was before the Communist took over, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is a complete shithole.

[wraith261]

Just because the Soviet economy was growing doesn't mean it wasn't very inefficient or that it couldn't have done better under capitalism.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. The Soviet economy may have been growing but they were putting too much of their resources into the military and ignoring the needs of their people. This is a fact and I've sourced it. Maybe YOU can convince ingliz of this.

[SF edit: Quote tags added. Please use the quote tags for quoted material. Yellow card for repeatedly and deliberately failing to sensibly format posts.]

[QatzelOk]

Meat Consumption per Qatzel Ok
1975: 11.1kg
1980: 57.6kg
1985: 61.7kg
2001: 0 kg

TV Sets per 100 Qatzel Oks
1975: 100
1980: 100
1985: 100
2003: 0

Being in Afghanistan is NOT justified by an idealized level of consumption of consumer goods. That the Soviets were watching more TV that year is NOT a legitimate reason for international interference.

I realize that Saudi Arabia and the USA were funding the pre-Taliban invaders back then, but that doesn't mean that the Soviet Union's nice level of consumption redeems their counterterrorism in the region.

[Kasu]

By that logic, the government should censor the manner in which you speak, such as screaming fire in a theatre, but instead censor the content of what you speak.