It’s more of a natural development from the rise of industry, that doesn’t mean it’s eternal, but it does mean we can learn how to move beyond it and into Socialism.
See Chernobyl as to why the politburo system and the need for the committee to have an opinion on everything was so flawed. Also look at Kruschev and his attempt to pivot agriculture to corn.
Socialism absolutely works, we use it all the time. But the Soviet system was not a good implementation of Socialism. The workers did not own the means of production nor did they have much power.
Chernobyl was a cascading series of errors, not a fundamental flaw with Socialism. Kruschev’s reforms were largely bad, yes, but that too isn’t a problem with Socialism itself.
I don’t know what you mean by “we use Socialism all the time.” Who? Socialism is a descriptor for an entire system, not portions of it. Unless you think we are both Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc, then “we” don’t use Socialism.
The Soviet System was absolutely a good implementation of Socialism. It was not perfect, but it was real and came with real victories. The Working Class did own the means of production, and held all of the power, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Chernobyl was much worse than it had any need to be due to meddling from political officers and a general structure of fear of challenging them. A failed test light started the problem however shutting down the plant before it got out of hand was delayed. Also. it was not reported to the wider affected world until the Swedes raised the alarm after fallout had reached their detectors.
Then you only need to look to the current oligarchs and where they came from in the fall of the Soviet Union to see how wealth was already stratified in such a way as Clinton and Western banks could assist in raiding what was left of the Soviet coffers.
The Soviet system being inherently top down and heirarchal is susceptible to Dictatorship and political hegemony. It is patently not a good system. I don’t need to even get into the minor rebellions Trotsky put down or the rise of Stalin and his famine.
Chernobyl was a cascading list of failures not unique to Socialism, nor incapable of being solved. Fukushima was also a cascading list of failures in a Capitalist country. Are you just anti-Nuclear? There can be some legitimacy to that, but to blame a nuclear disaster on Socialism specifically when similar failures happen in Capitalism is wrong, it’s a procedural issue.
As for the Peasantry and Proletariat, wealth disparity drastically shrank, while GDP grew dramatically:
Metrics improved drastically. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates went from the low 30s to 99.9%, healthcare and education both became free and grew to be high quality, the economy was democratized, and working hours lowered as compared to Capitalism. Famine, when previously common, was ended. If you want to blame Socialism for famine in a country that had regular famines, you need to credit it for ending famine as well.
I don’t know what you mean by the Soviet system being “susceptible to dictatorship” any more than any other system, it was both top-down and bottom-up. The Working Class held control of the State and oppressed the bourgeoisie.
It’s more of a natural development from the rise of industry, that doesn’t mean it’s eternal, but it does mean we can learn how to move beyond it and into Socialism.
Soviet Socialism was very polluting as well
Sure, it was also a developing country in a world that hadn’t created cheap renewables. They also invested in research for nuclear power as well.
See Chernobyl as to why the politburo system and the need for the committee to have an opinion on everything was so flawed. Also look at Kruschev and his attempt to pivot agriculture to corn.
Socialism absolutely works, we use it all the time. But the Soviet system was not a good implementation of Socialism. The workers did not own the means of production nor did they have much power.
Chernobyl was a cascading series of errors, not a fundamental flaw with Socialism. Kruschev’s reforms were largely bad, yes, but that too isn’t a problem with Socialism itself.
I don’t know what you mean by “we use Socialism all the time.” Who? Socialism is a descriptor for an entire system, not portions of it. Unless you think we are both Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc, then “we” don’t use Socialism.
The Soviet System was absolutely a good implementation of Socialism. It was not perfect, but it was real and came with real victories. The Working Class did own the means of production, and held all of the power, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Chernobyl was much worse than it had any need to be due to meddling from political officers and a general structure of fear of challenging them. A failed test light started the problem however shutting down the plant before it got out of hand was delayed. Also. it was not reported to the wider affected world until the Swedes raised the alarm after fallout had reached their detectors.
https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-19-mn-16808-story.html
https://www.voiceofbelarus.com/how-and-why-authorities-hid-truth-about-chernobyl/
The average Soviet farmer rarely benefitted from their labor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union
The same for the average factory worker.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_reform_in_the_Soviet_Union,_1956–1962
Then you only need to look to the current oligarchs and where they came from in the fall of the Soviet Union to see how wealth was already stratified in such a way as Clinton and Western banks could assist in raiding what was left of the Soviet coffers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how-shock-therapy-created-russian-oligarchs-and-paved-the-path-for-putin
https://jacobin.com/2017/03/russia-us-clinton-boris-yeltsin-elections-interference-trump/
The Soviet system being inherently top down and heirarchal is susceptible to Dictatorship and political hegemony. It is patently not a good system. I don’t need to even get into the minor rebellions Trotsky put down or the rise of Stalin and his famine.
Chernobyl was a cascading list of failures not unique to Socialism, nor incapable of being solved. Fukushima was also a cascading list of failures in a Capitalist country. Are you just anti-Nuclear? There can be some legitimacy to that, but to blame a nuclear disaster on Socialism specifically when similar failures happen in Capitalism is wrong, it’s a procedural issue.
As for the Peasantry and Proletariat, wealth disparity drastically shrank, while GDP grew dramatically:
Metrics improved drastically. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates went from the low 30s to 99.9%, healthcare and education both became free and grew to be high quality, the economy was democratized, and working hours lowered as compared to Capitalism. Famine, when previously common, was ended. If you want to blame Socialism for famine in a country that had regular famines, you need to credit it for ending famine as well.
I don’t know what you mean by the Soviet system being “susceptible to dictatorship” any more than any other system, it was both top-down and bottom-up. The Working Class held control of the State and oppressed the bourgeoisie.