How and why did the soviet union become such a potency?

>what are natural resources and human capital

shut up goy you have your iphone and jeans what more do you want
>hurr easter bloc has more natural resources and human capital than USSR
m8 any meaningful stolen human capital came from Germany.
eastern bloc was living dead buffer zones. (excluding DDR)

>slavework
>good resources
>looting and selling wheapons
>killing millions and confiscating everything possible
>get war-compensations and other helps
>still hungry poor fucks
>success?

Because of Russians. Fucking based people

bodies and land are always valuable you cuck

stupid nigger you implied that eastern bloc gave USSR its superpower status, bodies and land of eastern bloc was insignificant compared to USSR itself. looting east germany was the most beneficial shit they got out of that war (you know since the real war and devastation happened in eastern Europe including inner USSR).

Now if it was western Europe that they subjugated then it would be a different story.

Well, samoyeds ARE from Russia

And are totally a white people dog

you make it sound as if Eastern Europe was Africa-tier. Eastern Germany, Parts of Poland, and Czechoslovakia were just as wealthy as the rest of Europe m8

Talking pre-ww2 ofc

what the fuck does pre ww2 have to do with this, eastern bloc appeared after ww2 concluded and yes most of eastern Europe was african tier.

Estonia for example had massive industries freshly developed in the beginning of the 20th cent. We were producing a shitload of goods for USSR and the levels of mining whatever resources could be found were high as fuck.
It was definitely not a sustainable system.
To say Eastern-Europe was Africa tier is dumb as fuck..

>massive hunger
>disorganised military
>need absolute totalitarian state to keep people from rioting against government
Competing with USA?

im talking post-war eastern bloc, you know the place where Nazis and soviets shat on eachother with armies in the millions. Estonia was ussr anyway.

your whole point was that the eastern bloc gave ussr its power which is fucking stupid.

Because as much as Americlaps and the neoliberal world order bang on about it, freedom is not one of the essential components of human life.

The USSR unleashed Russia from the yoke of serfdom and the lash of the knout. It tore apart all the constricting aristocratic power that demanded a rentier economy built on the backs of peasants andthat prevented industrialisation and the social mobility necessary for industry. Russia has the resources and manpower to prosper. All that you need to do is sweep away the garbage that somehow always manages to collect at the top of Russian society and the nation will prosper.

Over time the USSR itself fell victim to that interminable decline of Russian leadership.

check the ID's mate, I'm not the original spanish guy. I'm just an Estonian in Spain trying to say that my country had just entered it's golden age after beating the Russians after WW1. In spite of being a war-torn place, we built our country up to a great extent before going under USSR. As our porgress at that time was fast as hell, my only point was that comparing us to africa is a shambolic attempt at trying to think.

>neoliberals
top fucking kek

Neoliberals belong in guillotines.

when you have nukes, you can't lose
in almost every sector, russia is behind though

>sweep away the garbage that somehow always manages to collect at the top of Russian society

too bad they also swept away basically every educated or intellectual person in the country

Stalin, he made the Soviet Union Great but for a highy price and bodycount...

After him only cucks came to power.

They were a propaganda empire that only ever existed on paper.

Didn't seem to harm their GDP growth too much. Maybe we don't need (((intellectuals))) as much as they say we do.

my bad then. in terms of african tier I meant post-ww2 following the devastation, although some areas weren't hit as bad as others.

at no point was i talking about pre-ww2 eastern europe

>The USSR unleashed Russia from the yoke of serfdom and the lash of the knout.
And immediately subjugated them to an oppressive authoritarian regime whose core principle was that NO INDIVIDUAL HAD ANY RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

>le sweep away the elites and the people will prosper
This is literal Marxist dogma.

Like all socialist regimes, the USSR suffered from economic stagnation due to mismanagement and corruption within the government, which is destined to occur because the economy can not redistribute itself. Or am I just wasting my time responding to Australian shitposting?

>Implying neoliberalism is actually a thing
Damn, you commies are hilarious

I really hope it's some next level shitpost, mate.

Planned economies work better than market economies.

From agrarian shithole to first in space in 40 years. Even while being in a disadvantaged position geographically speaking. (WW2)

>And immediately subjugated them to an oppressive authoritarian regime who
Increased their standard of living in a single decade more than their previous feudal overlords had in a literal millenia?

A man needs shoes before he needs free speech.

>le sweep away le elites is marxist dogma
Sounds pretty Trumpian to me.

>America suffers from economic stagnation due to mismanagement and corruption within the government
Sounds extremely Trumpian to me.

Populism is as populism does, though.

It worked in the short run but what is left of the Russian Empire today?

>implying neoliberalism isn't a thing
theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

>le hayek and le von mises did nothing wrong
Even the IMF admits that the '90s and '00s were a mistake.

Friendly reminder that the Soviet Union collapsed on its own.

You act like the Russian Empire was some majestic jewel to lose. The fucking nips kicked their ass, dude. The Russian Empire was a bloated shit, and the last bastion of entrenched rentier economics. It refused to yield to modernity, and so it snapped. It managed to be an irrelevant backwater shithole despite having the third largest economy in the world prior to WW1, which should give you a clue as to the level of mismanagement involved in it.

You have a point. Maybe I have over-idealized the empire. I guess the whole history of Russia has been and will continue to be one of making poor use of all their resources.

>theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
People who identify as neoliberals are just statists in disguise. There are no authors or thinkers that identify themselves as neoliberals. It's just a lefty term to the new wave of liberalism.

Pretty much. It is inevitable that Russian leadership will fail its people. The history of Russia is basically just that.

>there are no authors or thinkers that identify themselves as neoliberals
You don't need to self-identify as part of an ideology to be part of an ideolgy. If it walks like a neoliberal, talks like a neoliberal, and destroys countries like a neoliberal, it's a neoliberal. I don't need your permission to call you one.

Not to mention that you're simply objectively wrong.

Woops!

Second half of
meant for

I didn't elaborate as much as I shoud have, my bad.

Neoliberalism isn't a thing, people who are said to be neoliberal are either just liberal or statists who have some liberal policies.

>You don't need to self-identify as part of an ideology to be part of an ideolgy. If it walks like a neoliberal, talks like a neoliberal, and destroys countries like a neoliberal, it's a neoliberal. I don't need your permission to call you one

The thing is that the authors who are tagged as "neoliberals" walk and talk like liberals, as well as identify themselves as such.

>Not to mention that you're simply objectively wrong

Would you care to explain why?

>Would you care to explain why?
Sure. Pic related: Milton Friedman's "Neo-Liberalism and its Prospects" 1951, pp 93. This isn't the only passage like that.

>Neoliberalism isn't a thing
But this is wrong. Even if neoliberalism were philosophically identical to classical liberalism (which it isn't) it is contextually distinct. In a hypothetical world where neoliberalism is identical philosophically to classical liberalism, neoliberalism is still a useful term because it distinguishes the specific time and position that we are in right now - the post Keynesian world and the Hayek-Mises neoliberalism that took over in the 1970s, all the way up to the GFC and beyond - things that talking about mere classical liberalism would diminish the relevance of.

Talking about classical liberalism instead of neoliberalism would, at the least, bring in a whole bunch of irrelevant shit that we don't need to talk about to critique neoliberalism. But it's not just this - it's innaccurate too. Neoliberalism is philosophically distinct from classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, as exemplified by Smith, bases its critique in the 'mercantile' world of its time and also contains a whole bunch of moral prescriptionism that neoliberals today like to shove under the rug (Smith wrote more than one book, remember? WoN drew heavily on what he wrote in Theory of Moral Sentiments, and Smith states unequiovocally that his free society relies on a whole bunch of moral, virtuous behaviour, which neoliberals either ignore or outright reject - Smith would never say that 'greed is good'). Neoliberalism, by contrast, ignores the role of virtue in the market. It is also contextually framed by the modern economy. The 1970s is different from the 1790s, obviously, and so the neoliberal medicine that Hayek and his followers prescribe is radically different than Smith. Smith, for example, advocated regulating the financial sector because he had just lived through the Scottish banking crises.

Read Antony Sutton and Major Jordan's diary.
Soviet tech is US tech @ 90%.
All the boats that transported weapons to North Vietnam (and helped killed US soldiers) had US engines. Missile tech e.g .was "borrowed" from German engineers at the end of WWII.
Sutton found only a couple of minor and inconsequential techs that were purely soviet.

NEP and later Stalin's industrialisation plans coupled with the USA neglecting math in their education system.

It had two things going for it which made it seem able to compete with the U.S.

1. A massive ground army. It was widely believed that the red army would win a conventional ground war in Europe or the Middle East against the U.S. and it's allies. This was why the U.S. never relinquished the right to use nuclear weapons on a first strike basis. U.S. nukes were seen as necessary to deter soviet tank brigades as much as soviet nukes.

2. A space program. The U.S.S.R. was the first to put a satellite in orbit, and the first to put a man in orbit. The military implications of this terrified Americans, because it proved the soviets could use a rocket to drop a nuclear warhead anywhere they wanted. It was sputnik which proved that the Oceans no longer protected the American homeland.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-03-sputnikside_N.htm

They never really could compete with us economically, but for a little while they were able to compete with us militarily and scientifically.

>Planned economies work better than market economies.

Demonstrably false. However, it would be true to say "military keynesianism works better than laissez faire economics".

>From agrarian shithole to first in space in 40 years.

Largely due to plundered german science and industry.

As Lloyd Mallan demonstrates in his work, soviet space feats were sheer propaganda from beginning to end. None of the claims they made was ever verified because all data was classified. When Mallan visited the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s, he had access to almost everything. All the technology he saw was inferior by several grades to US technology. They made a lot of calculations by hand where the US already had computers for instance.

Because of large Jewish minority. Jewish scientists were the backbone of the ussr. That's why Russia sucks today. Once most of the Jews left, all you had left was brainless slavs.

>massive hunger
>disorganised military
>need absolute totalitarian state to keep people from rioting against government
Hillary's USA