Is there ANY explanation for Russian failure to prosper despite being the biggest country on the planet, having the most resources, having more people than most of the rest of Europe put together?

Only explanation seems cultural to me

>>17851820 (OP)
It's because it's a multiracial, multicultural state that barely has put any work into integrating its federal constituents into the greater russian gestalt, read Aristotle.
They have no republican tradition, no national consciousness, no cultural incentive to be great. They are the biggest literally who on the planet. If they aren't led by a 9 or 10/10 guy, like pre-Cultural Revolution China - the same revolution that ended up definitely making Zhongyuan Han culture the absolute majority in the country, they just sit there doing absolutely nothing.

>>17851820 (OP)
They didn't get Protestantism. It's not a coincidence that the only successful countries in human history were/are Protestant

>>17851828
>If they aren't led by a 9 or 10/10 guy, like pre-Cultural Revolution China
I agree that Russia would benefit from a Cultural Revolution but China obviously had a national consciousness that demanded relative greatness and prosperity even before it. Russia doesn't, which is why they just think in the most base and gangster form of "be big, fuck people up." That's all they really care about, not even being powerful for greatness, they just have a prison mentality where they're okay with being immiserated as long as they can beat someone else up.

>>17851820 (OP)
Monarchism and communism kneecapped them, didnt have the population numbers to bruteforce success like China

>>17851820 (OP)
Russia kinda looks like Slovenia

Basically kept slavery around far longer than everyone else by calling it serfism

Slavery negates the need for innovation or attempts to improve efficiency

Then they leapfrogged into communism and that doomed them

>>17851860
>Monarchism and communism kneecapped them
Just the opposite- it was the liberals.

>>17851820 (OP)
>>17851828
Everything in the universe follows some simple pattern, there are no discrete anomalies. Civilization itself forms in a smooth gradient from the current center of innovation outward until you reach wilderness. Anomalies like the Rhodian conquest of Africa have clear causes, power imbalances, and they tend to fizzle out anyway. Looking at it that way, much of the globe still has minimal human habitation, far less civilization. Russia is one of those places. It's a land of future campaigns and adventures, like Canada. Humanity hasn't arrived in force there yet.

>>17851820 (OP)
Germans.

Russia is like the dam that keeps the teutonic flood from overwhelming the world. Sadly nobody is aware of this.

>>17851871
Communist are liberals, yeah.

>>17851820 (OP)
Progress is considered a "no no" in Russia.

>>17851820 (OP)
I think USSR conclusively proved that the problem has been bad government, because as soon as the communists grabbed power, Russia was immediately transformed into the global leader it was meant to be, and when they lost power, it sank back into corruption and mediocrity.

>>17851820 (OP)
They're slav(e)s of their elite

>>17851820 (OP)
>global superpower for past 300 years
>"why did they fail to prosper???"

>>17851820 (OP)
>Only explanation
It's not the only thing. They objectively have some serious hindrances like the massive distances and bad weather to extract resources.
But it's mostly cultural. The mongols / tartars completely mindbroke them, they still treat their own core provinces as the frontier and their own people like foreign slaves.

>>17851820 (OP)
>despite being the biggest country on the planet
Size doesn't matter irl and can actually be a hindrance. Part of why Russia stayed a serfdom state until the 19th century is partly because they had only virtual control over their peripheries. The local Cossack and religious figures were the rulers, by virtue of being the only ones possible locally, which lead to atomized communities with brutal local leaders.

>having the most resources
Gas is cool but isn't anything spectacular. They don't have the same potentials as the Saudis or other arab countries. It's surprisingly one of the few assets that make the russian economy relevant.

>having more people than most of the rest of Europe put together?
Europe is 740 million people ; Russia is 140 million people.

>Only explanation seems cultural to me
The explanation is that they had a very autocratic dynasty that maintained serfdom for very long for a plurality of reasons, which pushed away the average Russian from individualism and very tolerant of their conditions. The cossacks had somewhat of a frontier mindset but these were part of the lower nobility iirc. When the Bolsheviks came to power, it made things worse by centralizing the russian state even more and imposing a totalitarian regimes. As all totalitarian regimes before the advent of mass communication, the USSR was deeply plagued by a local aristocracy of bureaucrats and by inefficiencies which lead itself to delay its full exploitation of its potential. Since then, they've been unable to change because one man has assumed control over the country and switched from a fight against capitalism to a fight against "western degeneracy".
This is somewhat revealing of their conditions in general. Putin doesn't even need to be a totalitarian ruler because the russians are indeed somewhat tolerant of their abuse. As long as some form of essence is given to their state with bare conditions they'll abide with it.

>>17851828
>gestalt
>read Aristotle
Upvoted, kind stranger

>>17852330
>When the Bolsheviks came to power, it made things worse
You call control over half the Earth, a sphere of influence dwarfing the Roman Empire, "worse"? When was Russia EVER even close to that, before communism?

>>17852343
>10% of the population dead from the war
>get to lord over a ravaged and impoverished eastern europe as the prize
>economy stagnates the moment they're finished rebuilding
But they had influence with some oongaboongas across the world that made them great, right?

They not like us

>>17852330
>one man has assumed control over the country and switched from a fight against capitalism to a fight against "western degeneracy"
To be fair that was the only way to unite the country, both russian commies and anti-commies hate the west for its degeneracy

>>17852364
Yeah, you are brown

>>17852355
Yes, the communist empire did indeed dwarf the empires of Napoleon, Alexander, Hitler and Genghis Khan. But while people who dont approve of those guys are still able to acknowledge the sheer level of accomplishment, it seems we're too shellshocked to do that with what the Bolsheviks did accomplish in 40 years.

>economy stagnates the moment they're finished rebuilding
It stagnated under Breshnev. Keep in mind though that every once dominant european power of the last 200 years (UK, US, Italy, France) had banded together to stop communist expansion - through an arms race, and through economic warfare.

Capitalist historians like to try to establish as conventional knowledge that the USSRs economy "stagnated", but what actually happened was that the USSR lost a (cold) war against a unified capitalist West, that was stronger.

>>17852430
Why do amerimutts think Hitlers empire is on the same tier as Napoleon's or Alexander's? Say whatever you want about these two but they at least didn't lose the only war they started and their empires survived longer than 5 years.

>>17852438
And the Americans outlasted the Soviets. We win lol.

>>17852445

It cultural and institutional. Russia was a top heavy feudal society for a long time. Ironically communism pulled thrm out of the agrarian economy into becoming a manufacturing superpower. The problem with Russia is the landed elites, aka the aristocrats weren't investing and growing the country's economy. Thry were happy to collect taxes on their farmland and sit on the wealth. Thry didn't care about investing in factories or mines or anything really. All major investments into big armouries and naval shipyards came from the government. That only takes you so far.

>>17852330
>. Part of why Russia stayed a serfdom state until the 19th century is partly because they had only virtual control over their peripheries
Funny thing is that Russian Empire didn't have serfdom in the periphery...
Russia was inverted colonialism. When core regions were exploited harder than colonies because Russian elite had stricter military control over core regions and could abuse them harder.

>>17852453
We teamed up to defeat the USSR

>>17852430
>capitalists slow down with selling industrial machines to communists (they still sold Fiat factory etc)
> scientifically and industrially "superior communism falls appart
Fan fact: in 1980 USSR finally outrun every other country with amount of patents applications per year. 80 thousands, USA was close second with 70 something. You can expect USSR was scientific and innovation powerhouse in that period, right? Right? right... What did USSR developed in that period? Leading age of science was computer and information science and technology.
CD, personal computer, VHS. Right. USSR? Crickets.

>>17852495
Soviet patents be like:
Fig 000981: A machine that burns 10 liters of diesel an hour, takes ten men 80 hours a week to maintain, and slices up to a dozen potatoes a day when it’s not broken (which is often)

>>17852459
>into becoming a manufacturing superpower
Fan facts about USSR been "manufacturing powerhouse".
In 2024 China produced more cars than USSR did during all its existence.
In 2024 China produced 100 times (!) larger tonnage of ships then USSR produced during it's best 1985 year l.

>>17852501
You don't know how close to truth your are.

>>17852495
>capitalists slow down with selling industrial machines to communists
That's a fun, but not very honest, way of saying economic embargo. Why dont you explain what COCOM was?

>>17852544
What is the problem with economic embargo? Don't you know that commies have best scientists and engineers in the world? FACT! Why do Soviet commies need stinking capitalist goods? Explain to me using Marxist theory.

BTW first thing Bolsheviks did in 1918 is made foreign trade state monopoly and sanctioned ENTIRE world. And then commies cry about free trade? Have some self awareness (mission impossible for commies).

>>17852557
>Hell Yeah there was an embargo!
>Saint Ronald Reagan BEAT the Soviet Union by collapsing their economy with an arms race they were not able to compete with
>No no no the Soviet economy collapsed completely by itself because communism is simply unsustainable

look not even a communist per se, but the dishonesty of committed anticommunists is something to behold

>im not a communist goy, I just use anti communist as an insult, I swear

>>17852563
You didn't answer the question.

And again commies sanctioned world themselves in 1918 . It didn't stopped Americans sfrom been open to possible trade with USSE and they built Soviet industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_(architect)
Commies were kicked out of US club after cunt move of occupying Eastern Europe. So you cries a out free trade aren't accepted.

>>17852570
>if you think I'm stupid that proves you're X, it's clear

>>17852580
Nice selfie

>>17852575
Like I said, the USSR didnt collapse "by itself", it lost a war. The "problem" with the embargo, the arms race, and the cold war in general is that it was a geopolitical war, that the West won. So the point is not that the West wasnt stronger - it was.

The point is that anticommunists are dishonest when they after the fact try to write history as "communism collapsed spontaneously, because it is unsustainable". It makes no more sense than saying that the 3rd reich collapsed spontaneously, or Napoleonic france collapsed spontaneously.

>>17852594
>they after the fact try to write history as "communism collapsed spontaneously, because it is unsustainab
Answer the question >>17852557

>>17852621
The fuck you talking about, you fuckwit, I just fucking did. There's no problem with the embargo, the problem is pretending that the USSR collapsed by itself because communism is "unsustainable", when the USSR collapsed because it got beat, by the West.

>>17852630
>The fuck you talking about, you fuckwit, I just fucking did.
You didn't.
Why do Soviet commies need stinking capitalist goods? Explain to me using Marxist theory.
Anything but answer to this question isnt accepted.

>The fuck you talking about, you fuckwit, I just fucking did.

>>17852638
>Anything but answer to this question isnt accepted.
lmfao, I finally met the guy who makes the "4chan rules"

>>17852644
I accept your concession.

>>17852594
No one forced the USSR to try to achieve arms parity with America or continue the space race with the stupid Buran shuttle, etc. They did all that by themselves out of pride. And their economy was an inefficient stinking pile of shit even if they had not done all that.

>>17852658
it's clear you're some buttmad anti-communist who's daddy suffered in a gulag or had to stand in line for bread or whatever, and you've therefore decided to pull the thread into general shitposting. If this was the good old days this is the point where you'd start spamming the gore and cp.

I'm not a marxist and I dont have to explain anything "using marxist theory"

>>17852665
Denying the US first strike capability forced them to try for parity.

>communist fantasizing about gore and CP

NATO should have killed more of these “people”

>>17852684
where did communism touch your daddy, show on the doll, anon. Oops guess your dad has a vagina

>>17852666
>I'm not a marxist and I dont have to explain anything "using marxist theory"
Acknowledging that communism is mumbo jumbo that doesn't work.

>>17852438
We don't, euromutt.

>>17852693
They had the victim use one of those dolls at your trial huh?

Folks, why are so many leftists pedophile freaks?

>>17852701
>Marxism is correct
>The USSR accomplished impressive things, and perished through war, not because of Marxism

These are two distinct positions that dont need to overlap. It's a sign of sloppy and unintelligent thinking that you think they do.

>>17852679
How building Buran or Tu-160, aircraft carriers was denying US first strike capabilities? That was just mindless copycat.
"Gibs me dat" childish tantrums of Kremlin elders who fell into senile dementia.

>>17852712
Nice to see trollface posted, it's not often these days. Too bad you come off as some unhinged facebook boomer with a meme-warfare folder

>>17852714
>Marxism is fake science, gommunism doesn't work
Ok.

>>17852715
There are inefficiencies, stupid decisions, things done to "project strength", etc, in every war.

It's still a fact that the US and the USSR had enough nukes pointed at each other that both considered existential annihilation a plausible scenario if the other side got first strike capability.

The Soviets had EXTREMELY rational reasons not to back down. If you need more arguments to that effect, just consult the reasoning of US conservatives like Reagan. Maybe there's a bear in the forest. Wouldnt it be wise to buy a gun?

>>17852717
Marxism is to large extents fake science, especially the parts about hegelian determinism of history and Marx knowing how that is going to play out. The USSR as a state was not provably viable, but also accomplished a lot of really unexpected and impressive things. Not necessarily mainly because of Marx though.

We needed the Revolution and USSR to be our own version of National Socialism, a giant racially conscious panslavic technocratic autarkic state where "minorities" would be eventually be exterminated and the land resettled with eugenic specimens of Slavic race, and then destroy the historical enemy Germany and eventually England for a Slavic planet. Instead it was a Jewish system based on stupid economic ideas that hated Slavs and panslavism and elevated these minorities, which collapsed into an oligarchy. We will probably never get another chance at greatness unfortunately.

>>17851820 (OP)
Literally just communism. Tsarist Russia was rapidly industrializing before WWI, if they don't get overthrown by communist retards who can't economy and murder millions of their own people then Russia probably becomes the most powerful country in the world unironically.

>>17852727
*not only provably viable

>>17852729
>t-t-trust me, we were just about to accomplish something, we just needed 500 more years of tsarism, but the commies came and stole our accomplishments

>>17852735
Communist retards managed to turn the greatest breadbasket in the world into a famine-stricken importer of grain from Canada.
I don't think Tsarist Russia was great, but literally anything other than seppuku economics that the Bolsheviks implemented and Russia would have prospered.

>>17852744
This is true. However, so long as WW2 happens, the U.S is probably going to be the main power of the world; without WW2 (you could maybe argue it, or something like it, wouldn't happen without the Bolshevik coup but I'm somewhat skeptical) then maybe Russia could have become the main power as western Europe started to decline from colonial fatigue.

>>17852722
Deflection.
Try again.
How did Soviet Buran, Tu-160 and carriers boondoggle reduced fist strike capabilities of the US
(Pro tip: they didn't).

>>17852343
It did comparatively. Had the February revolution not lead to the october one, Russia would've been a rich eu country probably.

>>17852750
>WWII happens without Bolsheviks

>>17852744
Obviously USSR had a lot of not so great things, atrocities, Stalin, pre WW2 famines, gulags, etc. The problem is that anti-commies are so completely buttmad 24/7 365 days a year that they just cant bring themselves to acknowledge that even so, the USSR accomplished much more in its 80 years than Russia has otherwise managed to do in 1000 years.

>>17852769
>the USSR accomplished much more in its 80 years than Russia has otherwise managed to do in 1000 years.
Like running out of bread and dissolving Russian Empire that Russians assembled by blood price for 500 years?

>>17852774
Yeah that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's goes like this "Man, that Genghis Khan he was a complete monster, wiped out women and children and whole peoples, but boy that conquering he sure changed the world", and "Wow Hitler really had it in for the jews didnt he, what a nutcase, but he sure made the trains run on time and that autobahn system", and "Stalin was a piece of work wasnt he that famine of 1932, but fuck I cant help thinking Sputnik was kind of-" "NONONONO COMMUNISM IS TERRIBLE!!1! BREAD LINES HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE BREAD LINES

>>17852761
Why not? It wouldn't be specifically the way it happened historically, but a major European war happening again was basically guaranteed due to how punished Germany was, something which likely still happens whether commies or social democrats or liberals or tsarists are in power in Russia.

>>17852774
The Russian empire that we built with our blood was dissolved when Germans took control of it and invited in other Germans to be our ruling class. There was no Russia after Catherine the Great the German slut who gave everything in Russia over to Germans.

>>17852753
I've already adressed what you said. Autism doesnt give you special "I'm gonna police your answer"-powers so fuck off.

>>17852794
>The Kyivan empire we usurped
fixed

>>17852808
Never existed. Kiev was another Rus principality. Kievan Rus was coined by a Russian and describes a historical period, not a separate ethnos and state.

>>17852823
The glory belongs to Kyiv, not to "Russia", and especially not to pigsty "Moscow"

>>17852787
Actually the gulags and random atrocities I don't particularly care about. If they killed the right people I'd have no problem with it (and they ironically killed all of the leftist intellectuals and civil society people so Russia is actually more sane on stuff like trannies than most of Europe is today.) The problem with communism wasn't those atrocities, it was the fucking idiocy of trying to run the entire economy through state fiat that made everything poor and shitty for everyone and a total inability to keep up with other countries technological development so the whole thing collapsed.

>>17851820 (OP)
Same reason Canada isn't a superpower either, the only reason why these northern countries are so big is because they're made up of left over land that nobody else wanted

>>17852841
Then it's time for you as a libertarian to come to terms with that running the economy by state fiat is exactly what led to some of the USSRs greatest achievements. Five year plans isnt something only exercised by Trotsky and Stalin. Lee Kuan Yew didnt exactly build modern Singapore on close readings of Ayn Rand. And Belt and Road is a real threat to the West right now exactly because we've given up the political will to decree stuff on that scale.

>>17851820 (OP)
they were always a extraction state ruled by foreign elites, also being close to steppe niggers is really fucking great handicap

>>17851820 (OP)
They unironically think prosperity is western degeneracy

>>17853927
Right, there's no way western degeneracy could count as degeneracy.

>>17851820 (OP)
All of that is the reason why it cant prosper. If they stayed smaller more managable, lets say a territory around Moscow, they would be on par with western powers and their wealth and living standarts. All the excess is draining it away.

>>17852787
>>17852787
>Man, that Genghis Khan he was a complete monster, wiped out women and children and whole peoples, but boy that conquering he sure changed the world",
Duude. If you look at Genghis Khan policies and laws it is very logical and understandable framework aimed to reinforce and make his state prosper.
Clearly laid out laws, instead of autocrats ever changing whims.
Discipline.
Meritocracy instead of clans nepotism.
Ungodly punishment for anyone who refuses to bend knees to his will but fair acceptance for everyone who did accept his will
It's just logical and straight framework of state building

>>17852787
Now take Marxism. It's incoherent mumbo jumbo blabbering that had zero relevance and userfull guidence in the real world.
You ignored my question >>17852638
Thinking it's just a joke. But has deep principal meaning.
There is economical phenomenon. Soviet commies buying inferior capitalist goods and Marxist ideology is falling flat on it's face to explain that phenomenon.
What is the use of Marxist gommunism if it has no connection to real life?
You think ideology is just useless blabbering. You entitled ass living under capitalism thinking communism Iis just a McDonald's but with red flag but you can't be more wrong.
Ideology sips everywhere and shapes every part of the society. USSR felt apart because it run out of food. What is basic response of the market economy when some goods (like food) are in the deficit? Market rises price sending signals to economic agents and redistributong recources to increase deficit goods production. But in communism it doesn't work like that. Prices are ideology loaded question. Literally "le exploitation" meme . You can't just change price.
In China Deng Xiaoping first thing put Stalinists into Gulag and quietly canceled gommunism meme with his agrarian reform. Disbanded kolhozes and introduced market pricing for food production surplus.
USSR? Gorbachev remained adamantly STALINIST in the agrarian area
>Dictatorship of the proletariat!
>fuck peasants!
>DekUlaKisation!
>over my dead body!
You wish will come true lol ))))
In 1991 Gorbachev was outstead from power, kolhozes disbanded and market prices introduced by Russian authorities as urgent need in January 1992.
This is what doomed USSR. Ideologic purity of following Marxism meme.

The Russian Empire was something like a huge Orthodox Afghanistan. Higher education was banned for everyone except male aristocrats (who made up about 0.5% of the total population). By the early 20th century, only 10% of the population could read and write because the tsar preferred building churches instead of schools. Less than 15% of the total population lived in cities. They were the last in Europe to abolish serfdom. The state of industry was extremely weak. On top of that, the entire country was bound by various feudal restrictions until the 1917 revolution—for example, it was nearly impossible for a peasant to move to a city, and non-aristocrats were barred from becoming officers, lawyers, or even mid-level officials. In other words, it was an unviable system due to the complete lack of desire on the part of the tsar and his entourage to modernize the country, because any modernization was seen as a threat to absolute monarchy.

>>17855830
When the Communists came and created the USSR, they quickly solved a number of the monarchy's inherent problems, such as lack of industry, low urbanization, ossified social mobility, lack of science and education. But they spawned new problems — first, due to their dogmatic ban on private property and business, the country could not develop normally except in the military-industrial complex and construction. Everything related to the consumer economy stagnated. But obviously, you can't trade intercontinental ballistic missiles, so their economic potential was very limited even in the best years. Second, the irrational policy of "world revolution" turned the USSR into a pariah state that no one wanted to be friends with and which was under sanctions. Third, systematic human rights violations paralyzed personal initiative and the innovative spirit

After the fall of communism, Russia finally found itself in a market economy with a relatively high level of education, surrounded by friendly/neutral countries. But two problems emerged: first, the Communists had failed to build an economy oriented toward exporting high-tech consumer goods, since all engineers had been working to produce tens of thousands of missiles and hundreds of thousands of tanks (missile trade is limited, and no one needs that many tanks). As a result, post-Soviet Russia could only become an exporter of oil and gas. Second, after the collapse of the USSR, an institutional vacuum emerged—the Communist Party, the Komsomol, and local party committees disappeared, and the population was too demoralized and atomized to build a rule-of-law society from scratch. In place of the Communist Party came first gangsters (in the 1990s) and then the FSB (in the 2000s), who built a gangster capitalism. Still, thanks to high oil prices, the situation was not yet critical—but after 2014, when Putin had a bout of paranoia, the course shifted toward maximum isolation from the outside world.

>>17851820 (OP)
>Is there ANY explanation for Russian failure to prosper despite being the biggest country on the planet, having the most resources, having more people than most of the rest of Europe put together?
>
>Only explanation seems cultural to me
Geography

Russia has shit water transport and extremely easy to invade due to terrain

it had little trade or exchange of ideas and was constantly invaded as a result

Thomas Sowell does a pretty good piece on this


it's also worth pointing out you're wrong and Russia's population is much smaller than Europe and unlike the rest of Europe it is extremely heterogenous with many problematic minority groups

>>17851820 (OP)
>biggest country on earth
95% of that is frozen wasteland

>>17851820 (OP)
>Only explanation seems cultural to me
Half correct.

Russia's ruling class was entirely comprised of Germans and thus completely unable to innovate or prosper until the overthrow of the monarchy and the rise of the USSR. What Germans failed to do in centuries was done in 5 years by Lenin. Funnily enough something similar happened in Germany, they spent their entire existence as the joke of Europe but once America conquered them and took over after WW2 they're suddenly a functioning nation state.

>>17855830
>On top of that, the entire country was bound by various feudal restrictions until the 1917 revolution—for example, it was nearly impossible for a peasant to move to a city
Commies projection is so funny.
No, after 1861 emancipation of peasants there no limits for peasants to move to the city and get employment there. In fact absolute majority of all workes of quickly industrialized Russia were first generation migrants from rural villages.

Soveit commies ACTUALLY introduced feudal serfdom back. Tying people to land. People had to register their residential place with police and they got address stamp in theit internal passport. And they couldn't do anything without internal passport. Getting employment? Buying train ticket? Papers please. And Soviet citizens could only get employment in a city they have registered and state only provided new residence to people in city they employed (some funny 22 catch).

But here it becomes even better: Soviet peasants didn't have internal passports until 1974... literally second class feudal peasants serfs. If peasant needed to live village for example to go to deliver kolkhoz's produce to nearby town kolkhoz chairman wrote him road pass where it stated destinations of travel, goal and time of travel. Literally same road passes Russian feudeals issued to their feudal serfs before 1861.
To move to city and start working as worker peasant needed to get permission paper from kolkhoz chairman (imagine sweet corruption possibilities here... mmm...)

>>17852465
>China USA alliance
>Both become the superpowers of the world
>India USSR alliance
>Both become the laughingstocks of the world

>>17856911
Imagine the smell...

>>17855714
>>17852638
>Why do Soviet commies need stinking capitalist goods?
Because the Soviet system was terrible as most command economies were incapable of allocating ressources, and because certain ressources couldn't be obtained in the USSR ?

>What is the use of Marxist gommunism if it has no connection to real life?
Did liberalism have no use in the 18th century because no one was liberal except for niche intellectual circles ? Or did it have its use because it revealed certain truths about the current system they lived in ?

>USSR? Gorbachev remained adamantly STALINIST in the agrarian area
Gorbachev was a democrat socialist and even founded a socdem party in Russia in 2007

>This is what doomed USSR. Ideologic purity of following Marxism meme.
Let me guess, marxism = totalitarian command economy ?
But to give an accurate description of why it failed, the Soviet system had 3 main flaws :

1. The Gosplan couldn't allocate ressources to the needs of each citizen, because it lacked the proper insight to do so. The USSR's economic feedback loop were terrible. Ironically enough, had they implemented the OGAS reform, they could've benefitted from much smarter allocation with computers.
2. The USSR was constantly at war with the West, despite being inferior numerically and technologically. This meant that more ressources had to go to the army rather than the civil sector. This fucked the consumer economy because everything was going towards the army and not the people
3. Apart from the stalinist era, there was no place for reformers. There were many proposed reforms by technocrats (Kosygin, OGAS etc) but they were all abandonned because the politburo simply didn't give a shit and wanted to keep its power. In the 60s and especially under Brejnev, this new class of bureaucrats became leeches that were convinced of the superiority of communism, and that they didn't need to do anything to improve the situation since capitalism would "inevitably" implode on itself.

>>17857150
>Because the Soviet system was terrible as most command economies were incapable of allocating ressources, and because certain ressources couldn't be obtained in the USSR ?
Now spell it in Marxist mumbo jumbo.


>Gorbachev was a democrat socialist and even founded a socdem party in Russia in 2007
"Know people by their deeds"
Talk is cheap. Check Gorbachev's actual policies. In agrarian sector Gorbachev was rabid Stalinist continuing exactly Stalinist polices without giving up a single inch until he was kicked out of power.

>. The Gosplan couldn't allocate ressources to the needs of each citizen, because it lacked the proper insight to do so.
Again spell it Marxist mumbo jumbo.

My main point Soviets maintained ideological purity to Marxism that had zero real life applications. They ruled country without working economic theory. So their fate was predetermined

>>17851836
Spain and France both had pretty good runs...

>>17857167
>Now spell it in Marxist mumbo jumbo.
what does this even mean at this point ? Do you think that marxism is a special language like french or english ?

>Talk is cheap. Check Gorbachev's actual policies.
>what is the perestroika
>what is the glasnost
I did, and he's a social democrat.

>In agrarian sector Gorbachev was rabid Stalinist continuing exactly Stalinist polices
Yes he didn't immediatly dissolve the kolkhoze because he needed to focus on other reforms first. Quite the deed indeed...

>My main point Soviets maintained ideological purity to Marxism that had zero real life applications
It did have real life applications. Do you even know what marxism is ? Let alone alienation, materialist dialectic, capitalist contradictions etc ?

>They ruled country without working economic theory
>what is singapore
>what is kerala
>what is eu healthcare
>what is chinese green energies, evs, ai etc
>what is social democracy
lol

>>17857213
>what does this even mean at this point
It means exactly what It days. Explain economic phenomenon of Soviets buying inferior capitalist goods using Marxist economic theory. Demonstrate its real world applicability.

>Yes he didn't immediatly dissolve the kolkhoze because he needed to focus on other reforms first
That is puting cart before horse. Food crisis was primary Achilles heel of the USSR that eventually lead to it's downfall.
It's most urgent and primary matter. And what did "liberal Gorbachev" decide? Stalinism if fine Chuds! Fuck peasants! DekUlaKisation! Dictatorship of the proletariat!

While in China Deng Xiaoping did exactly opposite. He started with agrarian maters first and decisively canceled stalinism there, undone collectivisation meme. Stalinists who voiced protests he put into Gulag and roved over with tanks.

>>17852715
The Tu-160 was sexy and therefore justified.

>>17857257
>Explain economic phenomenon of Soviets buying inferior capitalist goods using Marxist economic theory
Not a thing in marxist theory. Maybe you could use marxist authors talking about the division of labor in a globalist economy but not a thing that marx talked about

>Food crisis was primary Achilles heel of the USSR that eventually lead to it's downfall
It wasn't. I've told you earlier, it was a lack of feedback loop and corruption, which hurt the consumer economy

>deng did that
Gorbachev thought that a top-down approach economical reforms would benefit the system. He lead companies decide for themselves before slowly moving down. This of course did not work as companies started rigging the system to profit.


Notice how you haven't replied to anything I've said before ? Is it because you can't or is it because you reading comprehension difficulties ?

>>17851820 (OP)
Inhabited by Russians

>>17851820 (OP)
>>17851820 (OP)
Russia will only tolerate fascist strongman leadership. It's an area of the world where true democracy has never thrived.

This was true from the Tsars, all throughout the Soviet Union, and all throughout the modern capitalist days.

This strongman leadership inevitably becomes a klebtocracy and the only true path for success is is from loyalty to the dictator.

Consequently the peasant/vassal cast is stripped of everything so the ruling caste can thrive. It's always been that way in Russia and it probably always will.

The ruling party may change, but the old boss is basically the same as the new boss, even when they should be ideologically different on paper.

>>17851820 (OP)
Needs to be ruled like a gulf monarchy.

>>17855714
You demanded I explain something "using marxist theory", but, as I pointed out to you, I'm not a marxist and cant do that.
>Thinking it's just a joke. But has deep principal meaning.
lmfao faggot
>USSR felt apart because it run out of food.
It provably did not "run out of food". No one disputes the famines of the 1930s and no-one claims there were famines in the 1980s. You're fucking delusional.
>This is what doomed USSR.
What doomed the USSR was that it didnt have enough money to keep up with Reagans arms race, and still trying to do so in a command economy largely lacking computers, made them neglect consumer goods leading to the USSR and eastern standard of living writ large to fall behind the west, eroding public support. Then Gorbachev opened the door towards democracy and the thing fell apart.

>>17856911
>>17852465
Teddy’s USA-Imperial Germany-Qing grand alliance had succeeded?

>>17851820 (OP)
Just open a geographical map of Russia and that might give you the beginning of an answer. 75% of the country is either a frozen wasteland or hellish swamp. Distances are absurd and climate is horrible. It's extremely difficult to develop proper infrastructures that could link the different regions and people and leverage the population and natural resources.

>>17857312
You're right up until Putin. He's still a dictator but it's undeniable he's improved life for the average Russian enormously during his tenure, even if Russia still isn't fully developed it's much better than it was near the end of the USSR.

>>17856828
>No, after 1861 emancipation of peasants there no limits for peasants to move to the city and get employment there.
This is wrong, the emancipation of serfs was gradual in reality and it was never fully completed even as the Romanovs died.

>>17859332
This is incorrect. The emancipation of serfs began in the 1830s in the Baltic region. The emancipation program of 1861 was a wholesale legal reorganization at the lowest levels of society. Serfs converted their holdings into mirs, and had the capability to vote. Democracy technically existed since 1861. Peasants then formed land shares based on community vote and output. The obshchina system appeared only like serfdom in that the peasantry was agriculturally focused, unlike the merchant class or the free laborers one does not simply move around to wherever work is. It's an outright lie that some use to say that mir residents are slaves to the land- anymore than to say that farmers in America are a slave caste stuck to their farming lands.

However, the obshchina system used open-fields negotiating which made use of the vast reserves of Russian land. Stolypin, a capitalist at heart, wanted to reform away from that to a proprietary system then already adopted in the US and France. Field negotiations and open usage was discouraged, the bureaucracy switched to enforcing land rights and demanding that if people operate farms on lands that they are required to own it. This would also pave the way for land rents on farmers- a hefty source of potential income. Soviet collectivization in many ways was a conservative idea for Russia, both politically and economically as part of their social contract.

>>17851820 (OP)
None of this matters if you don’t have a stable non-corrupt government and court system, which Russia has never had

>>17859361
>non-corrupt government and court system
What makes you think they didn't?

Read "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" from Max Weber. This book explains very well why modern capitalism is bound by a certain kind of mindset and so why there is an empirical inequality between civilizations in term of developpment. Russia lacks the work ethic that made the Germanic and Anglo countries very successful for instance. To Russia to suits modern capitalism should need cultural change that Peter the First started to implement a long time ago but didn’t fully spread in the Russian society yet. Just like how Atatürk in Turkey (but it started before historically) tried to modernize Turkey to make it suiting the requirements of modern capitalism. On the other hand, with Meiji the Japanese succeeded at this transition and thus they became highly developped, and moreover concerning South Korea which alienated itself to the law of modern capitalism to the point that many South Korean converted to Protestantism. Basically what requires modern capitalism is a materialistic mindset added with rigor and seriousness. Societies who are too spiritual (superiority of the hereafter over the current world in term of consideration) or lack strong work ethic can’t compete economically with the countries who are materialistic and have a strong work ethic.

>>17852503
Noone gives a fuck chang.

>>17851820 (OP)
I remember a video about why russia is such a shithole. It basically said that the reason is that the russian rulling elite adopted a mongol-style type of government and the sole purpose of that government is to extract resources from it's population which was reduced to a state of slavery.
While western monarchs were forced to share their power and eventually build up their nations, the russian elite just focused on exploiting the common man as much as possible. There was no development of a civil society. It was and still is a society of masters and slaves, where the masters intentionally keep the slaves in a state of poverty and squalor to make them utterly ignorant and subservient.

>>17857312
IIRC the old Rus, before being conquered by the mongols was fairly "democratic" and the local slavs valued their freedom and locally elected leaders had a fair deal of power

>>17860448
>I remember a video about why russia is such a shithole. It basically said that the reason is that the russian rulling elite adopted a mongol-style type of government and the sole purpose of that government is to extract resources from it's population which was reduced to a state of slavery.
>While western monarchs were forced to share their power and eventually build up their nations, the russian elite just focused on exploiting the common man as much as possible.
It goes even older than that.
Russian State was founded by Vikings. Vikings raided slav tribal lands via river water ways and some vikings realized that they don't need to go all the way back home. They can build settlements to shorten their raiding ways. Following that raids even stooped been exactly raids vikings came once a year to villages and slavs paid tribute without much violence (still viking Konungs brought their entire military to this tribute collection, just in case). There can be slips of violence like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_of_Kiev
Viking founded State in Russia was distinct difference from Europe. Vikings were literally foreign invaders who implanted themselves into society as mafia state. It reflected in all ways of society.
Mongol invasion brought same shit that Russia already had. Buck broken twice.