bc it didn't work

@@guslarz oh it did, just not on the things you’d expect a government should do?

@@usurparemagnus yeah, it worked on occupaing my country for 45 years

@@guslarz there is a 90 percent chance the majority of people born during that era in your country wanna go back.

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 it ain't

Эта республика изначально была выделена из территорий РСФСР, а после провала проекта по созданию альтернативного советского финского государства, ее просто внедрили в состав России как еще одну автономную республику, которая существует до сих пор

Fun fact: Abkhazian SSR exists before being annexed to the Transcaucasian SFSR which split into the Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani SSR.

Syndicalism is more than that, syndicalism also envolvs unions alot, and unions was not a thing in the USSR I think. and a few more things

It was more of an industry related voting system. Unlike in any other 'democracy' voters could remove the guy they voted for (in modern 'democracies' you can't recall a person you elected which leads to popularity contest - 'elections' with X years of fucking over voters after that). So, if person X goes from bottom to top from one industry/plant => voters from that industry/plant can remove him => he'll be removed from the top position. If other top position people want him to stay then they could supress that (there are many ways to illegally influence voters in any country) or help that process if they don't want him there. Some people even made research on that, if it was fake populism or real thing that worked.

@@SwedishDrunkard5963 weren’t councils basically unions?

@@Prororo not exacly, there are diffrences, also unions were organizations of workers which they used to better force their will thru and get better working conditions and stuff, a council is more of a place were people are elected to represtent them and their local area, they dont have the same direct conection to the labour itself, ofcourse they still could try to get better working conditions for workers and stuff but that is more like a politician fighting for better working conditions than the workers directly them self. this is not the best description but its what I can do right after I have woken upp.

The USSR wasn’t “syndicalist”, as syndicalism wants worker unions, called syndicates, to control the whole economy. It’s more appropriate to see the USSR as having a council communist economy, with more authoritarianism and centralism, of course

... Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

That's not a bad analogy.

Always fear a bureaucracy that wants more power for it self, "for the people"

Best way to understand it.

It looks like the us federal system lol

@@pierren___ Well, a federal system actually has smaller jurisdictions (such as states/provinces) working independently withing a framework of a large federal government. Now, had you wrote, "It looks like the US federal government" your comparison would have made more sense.

Thanks!

That's a really bad analogy. Central commitee is incomparable to shareholders. None of these analogies work..

@@kyjo72682 ☝️those particular corporate analogies may not work but you do have to admit they are ABOUT work... 🥁

This guy is a stalinist

What is stalinism then

@@zxera9702 Stalinism is sometimes colloquially used to refer to Marxism-Leninism, but it more formally refers to the policies that Stalin employed while in power, namely in terms of heightened repression, heavy focus on rapid industrialization, and the formation of a cult of personality around the leader. The USSR went through "de-Stalinization" after Stalin's death, becoming less repressive (still authoritarian, but significantly less so), decreasing focus on the head of state, and shifting some of its priorities, so it stopped being Stalinist. It remained Marxist-Leninist because it retained the ideological precepts that Stalin came up with, but it manifested them in different ways, a bit like how different US presidents can belong to the same party and/or follow the same ideology as each other but put forward very different policies.

"and the formation of a cult of personality" Stalin didnt want to have this cult he didnt even like it. People just loved him automatically and I cant blame them. He wasnt actively making a cult. They loved him by accident

@@manuellanthaler2001 As I stated in my initial comment, Stalin did not deliberately cultivate a cult of personality around himself, but rather built one around Lenin. The effect was the same, however, as through Stalin's personal association of himself with Lenin this cult of personality also served to legitimize his own authority indirectly.

if you ask the leaders it worked as it should: preserving their power.

@@sosig6445 okay, does that mean we have to agree with it?

But if it worked it would still be around…

@@sagitarriulus9773 so, no socialist countries exist??

@@sagitarriulus9773 WRONG, just compare how Russia was before the societ union, like trillions worse haha, everything literelly everything eventually go down, that like saying the Roman Impire never work?? lmao ofc it Worked, thats why it lasted so long, the USRR worked fine until it went down.

Oh! Coincidence that I didn't notice.

Because its Reichskommissariat Ostland

The situation was the same in 1920 than in 1850 lol. Already had trains and galleries lol. But yeah its better to have a centralised system than a federal one.

Marx made the mistaken assumption that if workers could earn more money per hour, that they'd choose to work fewer hours, rather than keep working the same number of hours to make even more money. In fairness, the Industrial Revolution was only a few decades old; can't really blame him for it! But it turns out that people usually prefer to get paid, say, $800 a week for 40 hours of their labor rather than $200 a week for 10 hours. You just can't build a functioning society based on a fundamentally flawed assumption that most people want extra free time more than they want a bigger house or fancier clothes.

maybe I'm off here, but - the Russian Empire was still in the 1800s before the revolution. Besides a handful of cities the rest was still practically feudal when WW1 started, the communist revolution was supposed to be in Germany 1st then the other developed capitalist states. And worker control of local factories (means of production) is a an oversimplification of what 'worker-soviets' were. Anyway, going past the 50s without any of the European powers actively opposing [global] capitalism (I'm thinking 'financialization') + all the 'Cold War' meant "communism in one state" while doing 'great power' competition etc, etc.

Most likely, this is a myth. What difference does it make if one batch or two are the same?

Not so much vodka as food in short supply

Onondaga

ah the glorious industrialized, prosperous, innovative and democratic Empire before the USSR sure as hell got destroyed by these pesky dictators

@@mst2082 The Empire so threatening that the Germans advocated for an early war before Russia industrialised because Russia would be too strong for them after 1915.

Ur daddy beat you like a dog and now ur evil !

​@@mst2082 Believe it or not: yes Under the Russian Empire they tried to Industrialize, but WW1 halted that. Yes the Russian Empire was an absolute monarchy with a basically feudal system, but the slow reforms under them would have been far better than the outright destruction of the wealth the USSR caused This can be particularly seen in how the Aral sea was utterly destroyed, making central asia more akin to a desert than the steppe of grassland it used to be.

Well he technicly was second. We had a pope that judged his predecessor and threw his corpse down the river. ^^

Oh yeah, this russians who write everywhere in russian because of what? I don't think you don't understand this video because it's in fucking English, or you just see that this video about ussr and on the same moment writing about how grate of a country sovients was (it didn't) And this takes about sick Baltic States and Ukraine because they don't like and even hate person who annexed the first one and literary killed millions of Ukrainians in aesthetic famine (and also russians and another ethnicities)

Прибалтика и Украина не больные. Российский коммунизм-колониализм больный. Беларусь и Средняя Азия больные зависимостью России.

Lmao , 😂 salty alcoholic ruskyy

And now it’s gone so did it work? Was it prosperous? Do people stand on the roofs and shout it’s success?

@@sagitarriulus9773 It DID work,just because it's evil/authoritarian doesn't mean it DIDN'T work.Evil/authoritarianism and not working are not the same thing.

​@@sagitarriulus9773it was the richest country in Europe and second worldwide

@@Commissar_4735 was big was

Haha.

@@LookBackHistory I lied, I knew they were the same

My girlfriends grandparents told me it was the time of their life in the USSR and they had everything they needed. The only negative thing they talked about was their neighbor being sent to prison fo praising western capitalism and organising some pro capitalist movement or so. But apart from that they said they were way happier, safer and had a better standard of living with less work hours as they later did when they moved to capitalist bulgaria. But I mean of course everyone is going to say something different. It just striked be surprising as all I learnt in school was how terrible it was to live in the USSR and then to hear something totaly different from two people who actually lived there.

@@joycebrownsmith7541I mean most schools in capitalist countries are EXTREMELY anti communist

У меня такое ощущение, что вы читали про разные эпохи. Несколько семей в одной квартире и очереди на час это вообще с противоположных сторон. Первая из времен товарища Сталина, вторую устроил людоед горбачев.

​@@maksim05makarov The source of information specifically in this comment is not the history books, but these are stories of people I know. It is very possible that the some of these are slightly inaccurate in timeline. But the fact that you mentioned that multiple families live in same apartment happened ONLY in Stalin era is inaccurate. This also happened much later in 60's and 70's. The issue was that a lot of immigrants from different parts of USSR were flooded into Baltic states way after Stalin era, and there were not enough flats for everybody. The immigrant problem was so huge that when construction of metro was announced in Riga people were horrified. Why? Because metro construction meant approximately 100k - 150k immigrants (and also destruction of many historical buildings). The long ques in shops however were also an way issue before Gorbachev era (at least in Baltic states) Most grain, meat and fish from this region was exported to other regions in USSR where the population was a lot higher. There barely enough ''good ''food left for everybody and If you wanted some better cuts of meat or sausages or even fruit you did have to get to shops as early as possible.

@@tunemaki_izlasitrlv6835 it's very telling that whenever a soldier was stationed in one of the "allied" countries such as Hungary or GDR or Poland they often weren't allowed to re enter the urban centers lest they tell the other Russians how much of a shithole the USSR is compared to EVEN THE OTHER COMMIE countries. Ceasure of land DID happen even in Hungary but almost never to that insane extent. Villagers were regurarly left with almost 1 ha per household where they suplemented the mass produced grain from the state farms with their own produce to such an extent they could easily stock most of the nation with it usually thus shortages were rarer and private property was only obliterated on the large scale.

still a super power, how the people live does not detarmin if its a super power its about how much influence they have in the world and the USSR had alot

Yea now... but is the poverty a problem of the economic system or the 3 consecutive wars against communism by capitalists that always bombed them into stone age everytime it was done.

favorite part of the video is where the guy claims all authority was top down then goes on to say that decisions at the top had to be greenlit by regional authorities.

So is this video inaccurate?

No he's upset the guy didn't outright praise the ussr

@@1cupof6 so true. Btw why is it that most of the sources he used aren't about the Soviet political system?

@@1cupof6 Yes totally not because of historical nuance, a lack of good sources and whatnot

All three Baltic republics deserve nothing but sympathy... and some serious restitution that the present Russian state is obviously not willing to give.

@@LookBackHistorywhat do you think of the substantially large Russian minorities in the Baltics? Lithuania obviously has the least but 4% is still somewhat large.

@@LookBackHistory But you did say the localities elected their local ethnic representatives. This was not the case, they elected their local russijans.

is there a reason why the USSR didn't create a Baltic FSR?

@@jgr7487 most likely because of the different ethnicities in the baltics. It wouldn’t have worked just like Transcaucasia didn’t

yep, considering the fact that two Ukrainians and one Georgian held power in the Soviet Union it's save to say that Soviet Union had equal representation of ethic groups in the union

Hard do say. I’m from Russia and I hate both, but during the USSR, the only way to guarantee safety and prosperity for your family was to progress up the ranks of the Party. Nowadays, power is *very much* still abused (given by the war now), and while there’s no more communism (arguably), you still need good ties with the government to be wealthy or anywhere close to middle class. I suppose you could say that for the past 200-300 years, the only things that change in Russia are the faces of the country, the flags and the name.

Both

the time when only 28 ukr.deputies from 321 confirm a creation of USSR, other rejected the idea...

@@offroadguy7772 All countries work differently, so that's a non-answer.

Average 14 year old communist

What did you expect from the yanks, I suggest watching Hakim, FinnishBolshevik or The Marxist Project for more indepth analysis for the inner workings of the Soviet Union.

Cope harder commie. They lost

@@idestquodest the way you know the person that talks about something Probably doesn't know much about what he is saying is when they cite books in their descriptions. People who actually do analysis that is appropriate and accurate too the topic show their sources, show imperical evidence and quote out of their sources if needed to clarify.

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 The comrades I listed in my original comment are far more educated than I am, hence why I recommended OP to check the videos produced by said comrades. I may only attempt to copy what Hakim, FinnishBolshevik or JT Chapman (Second & First Thought) have said.

Meanwhile a guy with an easy Germany pfp:

@@legendarygodzilla3577 It was an easier Germany, yes

@@RSjs25 not really, it was a big giant slum people wanted out of 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@legendarygodzilla3577People ran to both sides

@@RSjs25 not really no barely 1k people a year left, compared to 100,000 people who fled east germany. to say its easier is disengenious

Very interesting take considering it was the same country that became a super power.

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Because of forced industrialization and slave labor.

​@@Peplll it didn't. Czarist Russia actually had literal slave labour and didn't become a world super power. >•>

​@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Tsarist Russia was an exploding Industrial and demographic power leaving the world on it's toes out of fear for it potentially becoming the supreme power over all asia with germany pre ww1 estimating that they would be incapable of defeating russia in a war the the near future, The communists did nothing but eviscerate the potential of their country, raising heavy industry and the expense of pretty much everything else economic and socially. Russian superpower status was something that occurred in spite of the soviets not as a consequence of it.

​''Super power'' is not how people living in it described it. Did you live in Soviet union? Do you know someone who lived in it? People even up to 1980's didn't have fridges in their flats (yes you heard right not homes with cold basements but flats), and something like washing machine didn't even exist in this ''super power'' so clothes were washed by hand up to mid 1990's. There were often 2 families with people from 3 generations living in tiny flats with 2 small rooms at best, and children often would sleep on floor not in beds. In shops people would form ques that were often 30 min - 1h long each morning before work. Why? Because there wasn't enough food for everybody. If you came last you often got almost nothing for that day. Fun fact - people often had too much money in Soviet union. People from west might ask how is that possible? Well, because there was not much you could spend that money on. You were not allowed to buy property. If you wanted a car you would wait 5-7 years in a que or 2 years for motorcycle. There was never that many clothes or furniture in shops. But guess what? Alcohol rarely run out so many people just drunk themselves to death. I often hear people on internet mentioning that people in Soviet union had free housing in ''commie blocks'' - meaning they got those flats for free (for their ''labour''). Yes that is true however that is not the entire story. Here is why: How did those blocks got build in first place? Back in 1970's my Grandmother had and 6 bedroom family home that was there for many generations. One evening police came to her door and said that she will be moved to 1 room flat in a ''commie block'' and she had to pack immediately. She was moved out of the house the same week and right after that house was destroyed and more ''commie blocks'' got built instead. Her house was stolen from her and the compensation given back was barely worth anything in comparison. And honestly this is the best possible outcome. Many people weren't that lucky so instead of being put in 1 room flat they were put in basements instead. Every ''commie block'' that I know of has a basement and believe it or not entire family would often live in them. And also Soviet union never put russians in basements at least where I live. Basements were only reserved for non-russians. This is just one part of ''Russification'' processes that went up to 1985-1986 in place where me and all my family has lived for centuries. I would be getting into a real horror story territory which I am not in a mood for. So if you want to keep calling Soviet Union ''SUPER POWER'' you can, but as I said that is not how people living in it describe it.

Fan of Stalin, hmm?

@@LookBackHistory a fan of impartial history haha. But get that check buddy!

@@theMultiJawee If you know someone offering checks, send 'em my way.

@@LookBackHistory the people I know that write checks require actual history. They’re called universities.

​@@LookBackHistory all of these people in the comments disagreeing are just tankies, ignore them and don't respond because that's what they want, you're a cool KZfaqr, don't let them bring you down

Looks like something the History channel would air on tv at 3:21 AM or something, indeed it is most unfortunate that cold war indoctrination still runs deep within the blood of the general American public. Thankfully a growing number of Americans have begun to re-learn of class consciousness and the real history of former communist and socialist projects.

Okay tankie

@@Megalodon_Megumer you are aware saying tankie isn't going to change that this video is obviously biased towards a certain outlook and took the liberty of researching with a conclusion instead of forming one with the evidence, right?

@@Megalodon_Megumer also, i would suggest not acting like this considering you are literally a channel that is made for larping.

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 what? 💀

Ничего не понял, но очень интересно.

I think there was a study that showed that the Russian empire was rapidly Industrialising before ww1 and their gdp was going up at the same rate that china is today (5%!). Russia without the revolution would not just be as rich as Poland but in the same ballpark as France or the UK!

Just adding to this at the end of 1916 germanys gdp decreased by 35% and the uks by 10% but russia under the russian empire STILL grew by 20%! Goes to show how rapidly Russia was industrialisng.

@@pilotpandashot Russian empire was losing the great game agaisnt Britain for control of the Central Asia (Russia through Afghanistain and Britain through India)

​​@@pilotpandashot that is a very optimistic interpretation. It's true that their GDP was growing at a decent rate however that was the economy as a whole which would include agriculture and other areas. However the rate of industrialization under the Soviet Union was higher than that of the Russian empire. It's an ugly truth but if it wasn't for the radical changes made by Soviet dictators then Russia probably would not have survived world war 2. If the monarchy had survived then Russia would have collapsed and the axis powers would then gain access to Russian resources (which they desperately needed). So saying modern Russia would be richer just because it's capitalist is a very questionable thing to say.