The USSR had to deal with a civil war, rising up during WWI and being sabotaged by the Germans, more civil war, foreign meddling, and all while being the first successful communist revolution. Yet they still managed to raise literacy, raise health outcomes, raise average life expectancy, gender equality, science and technology, end the cycle of famines (after the first one or two they had when they were still building up), had faster growth during that period than any capitalist country (except maybe the US, which was doing imperialism at the time and the biggest hegemon), all while helping sustain other socialist countries, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Yup, it would have been difficult not to get better at those after things were as bad as they were. It might be that the Soviet system did actually get some things right, just like the damn nazis managed to build a decent Autobahn network, designed Volkswagen and built some very useful underground train lines in Berlin. If you are a totalitarian country with concentration camps, you are not okay as a country, not even if you do some good things.
Soviet Union was a prison of its peoples and a murderous regime. A country exists for its citizens (or inhabitants, if you prefer that), but in Soviet Union the citizens existed for the country – meaning that the country did not fulfil a country’s main reason of existence.
Of course, if you want to compare growth against non-socialist countries, you need to choose one where the starting point was as abysmal as that of the Imperial Russia. Probably Finland is a good comparison, because when it became independent from the Russia in 1917, it was obviously about as developed as the Russia was.
So, if Finland was doing its job as an organized society better in 1991 than Soviet Union was, then there we’ve got a country that grew to a better result from the same starting point. If Soviet Union of 1991 was a better place for its people than Finland for its people as of 1991, then probably the Soviet way was better. From what I heard from my relatives who visited Soviet Union around the change of 1980’s to 1990’s, they seemed to consider Finland more successful. You can of course point some other country where the starting point was as bad as the socioeconomical state of the Imperial Russia in 1914, and we can look at that. But, the comparison Finland vs. USSR 1917–1991 does not look terribly good for USSR, all that frankly. A part of the Russian Empire broke away and did not become socialist. It ended up faring much better than the rest of areas that were under Russian rule. Why, if not because of avoiding Socialism?
The USSR had to deal with a civil war, rising up during WWI and being sabotaged by the Germans, more civil war, foreign meddling, and all while being the first successful communist revolution. Yet they still managed to raise literacy, raise health outcomes, raise average life expectancy, gender equality, science and technology, end the cycle of famines (after the first one or two they had when they were still building up), had faster growth during that period than any capitalist country (except maybe the US, which was doing imperialism at the time and the biggest hegemon), all while helping sustain other socialist countries, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Yup, it would have been difficult not to get better at those after things were as bad as they were. It might be that the Soviet system did actually get some things right, just like the damn nazis managed to build a decent Autobahn network, designed Volkswagen and built some very useful underground train lines in Berlin. If you are a totalitarian country with concentration camps, you are not okay as a country, not even if you do some good things.
Soviet Union was a prison of its peoples and a murderous regime. A country exists for its citizens (or inhabitants, if you prefer that), but in Soviet Union the citizens existed for the country – meaning that the country did not fulfil a country’s main reason of existence.
Of course, if you want to compare growth against non-socialist countries, you need to choose one where the starting point was as abysmal as that of the Imperial Russia. Probably Finland is a good comparison, because when it became independent from the Russia in 1917, it was obviously about as developed as the Russia was.
So, if Finland was doing its job as an organized society better in 1991 than Soviet Union was, then there we’ve got a country that grew to a better result from the same starting point. If Soviet Union of 1991 was a better place for its people than Finland for its people as of 1991, then probably the Soviet way was better. From what I heard from my relatives who visited Soviet Union around the change of 1980’s to 1990’s, they seemed to consider Finland more successful. You can of course point some other country where the starting point was as bad as the socioeconomical state of the Imperial Russia in 1914, and we can look at that. But, the comparison Finland vs. USSR 1917–1991 does not look terribly good for USSR, all that frankly. A part of the Russian Empire broke away and did not become socialist. It ended up faring much better than the rest of areas that were under Russian rule. Why, if not because of avoiding Socialism?