with Gorbachev and all those people

This is relevant. The people were satisfied with the conditions, and it was great compared to the homelessness and starvation capitalism produces

Gorbachev was a shitty social democrat, and Khrushchev was a revisionist. After Stalin, socialism was fucked. However, the conditions of the USSRs citizens were the result of the actions taken by state in the 30s and 40s

read this https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1984-629-2-Johnson.pdf

Give me a summary please, I have other things I wanna do than read this lol

i will tell you this

the avg wage of two working adults in a household combined

was 197 roubles

2.7 EUR

talking about 1965

and i can tell you that i personally wouldn't want to work for 2.7 EUR

while maintaining a household

and take a look at the countries of the Soviet Union in the 21st century

Bulgaria, Romania, Albania etc

do u think that they have developed

since i asked you about the development of a country

has eastern germany developed in contrast with the western counterpart

?

They had access to the things they needed. Money in the USSR functioned more as an accounting mechanism than the circulating currency of capitalism. Skimming through the document, it seems the author is putting an emphasis on their access to consumer goods, this is insignificant when discussing if the Soviet people were able to live comfortably. On East Germany, the region was poor from the start. It’s a bit surprising they were able to maintain the conditions that they did

what about the other countries?

have they developed

Hey I’m gonna go try to teach myself calc so I can’t stay rn, but I’ll give you a video or two that may help with getting my point across

as the Netherlands or Italy, who have been in the Western Block?

Sound good?

well, we aer talking about the development of a country

if u can find me a vid that can show me the development of every state

that were under soviet ruling

i'd be rlly appreaciative of that

Alright, as a closing statement I’ll say that socialism produced better conditions than capitalist countries at similar levels of development. The fact that any of them were comparable to capitalism in a short amount of time considering the mass poverty then majority of them were in before their socialist revolutions. That said, I’ll link you a playlist and a server full of docs

Socialists are the big dumb

>libertarianism
>capitalism

Are taxes theft

More like nazis don’t know the origins of socialism so they go with the definitions of small brained economists and low quality dictators

thats not how philosophy works lol

there are definitions that are proprietary to particular disciplines @☭ Anon ☭

no specific type of socialists have hegemony over the word

That doesn’t mean conflicting definitions can be correct. Socialism has its origins in the writings of utopian socialists, not whatever bullshit nazis are putting forth. They are socialist only to themselves

I’ll get back to this later nig

point is there is no "correct" definition if the standard its being evaluated in light of isnt determined already

marxists and spenglarians obviously use socialism differently. im interested to hear what considerations there are that would oblige me to think one is more legitimate than the other in and of themselves

@Łukasz lol no