And what about the rest of the USSRs accomplishments? Was winning WWII and putting a man in space also possible only because of latent, tacit capitalism, whereas everything objectionable there happened because of Marx?
You NEED "leftism bad" to be true. It's blinkering you
I'm not opposed to 'leftism' in the slightest...would even say it's necessary, etc. Neither am I some capitalist zealot. Capitalism is in many regards Leftism personified if we view its rise as an antidote to Monarchy and Feudalism, etc. Economic systems and the outcomes produced from them are nothing if not dynamic, and MUST be, let's say, 'tweaked' to adapt to various things. So, like many, I'm not 'anti-left' any more than I'm 'pro-right'. Cuz that's just silly.
As to the whole 'there's good stuff about Marxism' angle, that's just pure ideology, and, as such, more pretzel logic.
The Soviets would have gotten stomped flat without the U.S. shoveling food, resources, and war materiel at them. Without American food the U.S.S.R. would have had to ground its air force due to lack of fuel, would have starved in 1942 and 1943, and would not have been able to clothe, arm, or transport its military to the front. Soviet military production was of a horrifically-bad quality, which got huge numbers of their own people killed (and Soviet heavy industry had largely been funded and built by American capitalists in the 20's and 30's anyway). Soviet military tactics - especially in the early war - were hobbled by paranoid political concerns, leading to a complete lack of concern for logistics and the avoidable death and maiming of hundreds of thousands.
At the very least, the Marxism didn't lead to the industrial utopia or worker's state that it promised.
lmao you really threw the kitchen sink here. This reads like the cliff notes of a Thomas Sowell book
The "Soviets didn't really win the war" thing has been done to death. If you really can't see why it's wrong, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I will say that the things you're pointing out, like that capitalism created soviet heavy industry but that same heavy industry performed poorly, or that the USSR rather than the nazis are responsible for their soldiers deaths because of lack of "concern for logistics", are not persuasive to unbiased people.
Yes, capitalism set up huge factories for the Soviets to run, and then the Soviets horribly mismanaged the operation of those plants (e.g. by messing up the case-hardening process for tank armor such that T-34 plates frequently catastrophically failed when struck by ordinance that would otherwise not have penetrated, or by setting quotas of "finished" tanks and completely ignoring quality control, leading to frequent lack of waterproofing, functional electronics, or reliable gearboxes). Of course, the Soviets blamed these problems on "sabotage" instead of thinking for a moment that their system could have problems, or permitting some creative destruction of underperforming operations.
Yeah I think the country that killed and lost a hundred times as many men could fairly be said to have "won the war", but I'm not as accomplished a paraphraser as you are sir so by all means disregard
If you think improvements in Russia and China, etc have occurred due to an ABSCENCE of Capitalism, then you are just simply delusional.
And what about the rest of the USSRs accomplishments? Was winning WWII and putting a man in space also possible only because of latent, tacit capitalism, whereas everything objectionable there happened because of Marx?
You NEED "leftism bad" to be true. It's blinkering you
What about them?
I think you have urself wrapped in knots, tbh.
I'm not opposed to 'leftism' in the slightest...would even say it's necessary, etc. Neither am I some capitalist zealot. Capitalism is in many regards Leftism personified if we view its rise as an antidote to Monarchy and Feudalism, etc. Economic systems and the outcomes produced from them are nothing if not dynamic, and MUST be, let's say, 'tweaked' to adapt to various things. So, like many, I'm not 'anti-left' any more than I'm 'pro-right'. Cuz that's just silly.
As to the whole 'there's good stuff about Marxism' angle, that's just pure ideology, and, as such, more pretzel logic.
The Soviets would have gotten stomped flat without the U.S. shoveling food, resources, and war materiel at them. Without American food the U.S.S.R. would have had to ground its air force due to lack of fuel, would have starved in 1942 and 1943, and would not have been able to clothe, arm, or transport its military to the front. Soviet military production was of a horrifically-bad quality, which got huge numbers of their own people killed (and Soviet heavy industry had largely been funded and built by American capitalists in the 20's and 30's anyway). Soviet military tactics - especially in the early war - were hobbled by paranoid political concerns, leading to a complete lack of concern for logistics and the avoidable death and maiming of hundreds of thousands.
At the very least, the Marxism didn't lead to the industrial utopia or worker's state that it promised.
lmao you really threw the kitchen sink here. This reads like the cliff notes of a Thomas Sowell book
The "Soviets didn't really win the war" thing has been done to death. If you really can't see why it's wrong, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I will say that the things you're pointing out, like that capitalism created soviet heavy industry but that same heavy industry performed poorly, or that the USSR rather than the nazis are responsible for their soldiers deaths because of lack of "concern for logistics", are not persuasive to unbiased people.
Or Sean McMeekin's book.
Yes, capitalism set up huge factories for the Soviets to run, and then the Soviets horribly mismanaged the operation of those plants (e.g. by messing up the case-hardening process for tank armor such that T-34 plates frequently catastrophically failed when struck by ordinance that would otherwise not have penetrated, or by setting quotas of "finished" tanks and completely ignoring quality control, leading to frequent lack of waterproofing, functional electronics, or reliable gearboxes). Of course, the Soviets blamed these problems on "sabotage" instead of thinking for a moment that their system could have problems, or permitting some creative destruction of underperforming operations.
Yeah I think the country that killed and lost a hundred times as many men could fairly be said to have "won the war", but I'm not as accomplished a paraphraser as you are sir so by all means disregard
This is nothing but more knots, plain & simple.
You NEED "Marxism bad" to be true
It's blinkered you
You've said this already. It's weird.
Are u clairvoyant? Or is this a tell? (You NEED "Capitalism bad" to be true...it's blinkered you)
Pretty clear that US production and Soviet manpower were the winning combination.