no, during the 60s, there was this huge debate on how to reform the economy, it was a piece-wage system which depended on short term intensive growth periods to sustain itself

a few leaders fucked up, and the collapse of the Union began to show itself in the late 70s, which isn't the product of socialism, but poor leadership

there would be poor leadership regardless of any system, its not exclusive to socialism

just imagine a system in which bad reforms mean catastrophic nuclear fallout<:FalloutTrump:475766832117186560>

yea and so?

alr said it wasn't mutually exclusive

the USA did some pretty horrible things to.

like engaging in imperialism to safeguard their economic interests

would you have wanted to live in 70s SU?

sorry imperialism

no, the mid 50s and 60s, not the 70s.

don't bs me about imperialism when talking about SU

they had

literal colonies

the SSR's

count as colonies in the dictionary

do you even know what's a SSR?

Soviet Socialist Republic

yes I know

these 15 republics made the Soviet Union, they weren't colonies

they were colonies

no they weren't

alright lemme get you a definition yeah

they comprised of the USSR

that's like saying texas or nebraska was is a colony of the USA

ahh can't post images here

aight hang on

I'll DM you the pic

right now take a good read

you'll see

right

now tell me

did the SSR's have any political power?

did the SSR's have any political independance?

Military independance?

none

at all

it was all under the control of the SU

in a normal union of countries, like yugoslavia,

every nation is on the same level when it comes to power

no nation has more power than others