this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
170 points (84.0% liked)
Memes
54660 readers
1082 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The USSR wasn't "broken systematically," nor was it a "shithole." Those are better descriptors for Russia under tsarism and capitalism than under socialism. Following actual historical evidence, the USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Life expectancy from birth:
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
Supply issues in the USSR were magnified by sanctions and recovery from taking by far the biggest hit in World War II. When looked at from its historical progress, the USSR was a system of dramatic, rapid development and improvement that was under siege for its entire existence. It never once had a year of "normal" development, nor was it allowed to.
Any shortcomings compared to western, imperialist countries need to be analyzed with the context that the USSR was developing from utter immiseration under the tsar. The USSR did not fall from tsarism, but rose from tsarism as its base level of development. Tsarist Russia was not a peer country of the west, so the idea that the west having better access to luxuries than the USSR isn't a point against it.
The rest of your comment is a personal anecdote, which can be dismissed incredibly easy as such.
This really says it all, doesn't it? Russia is worse off for the adoption of capitalism and the dissolution of socialism, but you in particular are happier about it. Love your reasoning, being essentially having access to western commodities.
From you to "race realists" to Christian anticommunists to the US government to HP Lovecraft, western supremacists love to accuse people who know better than to guzzle chauvinist propaganda of simply having some vague, unspecified "fetish" for the Designated Enemy.
Of course, when you look at what else those people and groups do, it's easy to see which side is actually motivated by fetishism.
This is vibes-based.
Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism in the USSR. There's no fetish here, but instead a dedication to historical accuracy and fighting for a better world, where humanity organizes production and distribution to suit the needs of the people instead of the profits of the few.
It likely isn't worth continuing to argue on your end if you're going to stick with anecdote as your sole method of argumentation, and accuse me of having a fetish for bringing sources to back up my points.