Famines were common occurrence before the revolution, and were in fact a major driver behind it. USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:
During the 1932 Holodomor Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
While the leadership did not stop exports, they did try to alleviate the famine. A 25 February 1933 Central Committee decree allotted seed loans of 320,000 tons to Ukraine and 240,000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to other regions as well. Kul’chyts’kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine by April 1933 actually exceeded 560,000 tons, including more than 80,000 tons of food
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
Aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent greater than the amount exported during the same period. Total aid to famine regions was more than double exports for the first half of 1933.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
It appears to have been another consequence of the low 1932 harvest that more aid was not provided: After the low 1931, 1934, and 1936 harvests procured grain was transferred back to peasants at the expense of exports.
Tauger is not a communist, and ultimately this specific article takes the view that the low harvest was caused by collectivization (he factors in the natural causes of the famine in later articles, based on how he completely neglects to mention weather in this article at all its clear that his position shifted over the years). However, its interesting to see that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
Ah, communism is like unicorns. Many people like them but nobody have seen them alive. Because every communist state is not communist but authoritarian.
The endless “that wasn’t Communism, it was authoritarianism” lines come from liberals sympathetic to the ideas behind liberalism, but who have not read theory nor truthfully examined AES states. No more, no less.
When does a Communist country become authoritarian? This line is always repeated by sympathetic liberals that haven’t read theory yet think they know enough to judge Leftist movements.
It’s a problem of psychology and scale. The communist system becomes susceptible to bad actors the larger the group becomes.
In point of fact: I fully agree that many Latin countries, absent US bullshittery, intervention, and fomenting of coups in the first Cold War, would probably mostly have wound up being successful.
But I absolutely do not agree that the USSR or the PRC should be held up as paragons of virtue of what a Communist system should be. They were very quickly corrupted by authoritarian leaders and cliques from the get go, which is genuinely antithetical to true communism.
It’s a problem of psychology and scale. The communist system becomes susceptible to bad actors the larger the group becomes.
How? What makes it more susceptible in ways that Capitalism is better?
In point of fact: I fully agree that many Latin countries, absent US bullshittery, intervention, and fomenting of coups in the first Cold War, would probably mostly have wound up being successful.
Cuba is doing pretty well despite the brutal embargo.
But I absolutely do not agree that the USSR or the PRC should be held up as paragons of virtue of what a Communist system should be. They were very quickly corrupted by authoritarian leaders and cliques from the get go, which is genuinely antithetical to true communism.
No, they were not. This is vibes-based analysis mixed with Red-Scare propaganda. The USSR and the PRC were both Socialist (and the PRC remains so to this day). What do you mean by them being “quickly corrupted by authoritarian leaders?” You mean that they elected the wrong leaders in your eyes, that they should have gone against democracy?
Inequality shot far down in the USSR, and the Working Class was in control. That was absolutely Communism in action, regardless of your vibes-based analysis. Obviously many things also went wrong, they all had their struggles, but they were actually existing Socialism and should be analyzed as such.
Ah yes it was the CIA that did the Holodomor
Famines were common occurrence before the revolution, and were in fact a major driver behind it. USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:
During the 1932 Holodomor Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
Tauger is not a communist, and ultimately this specific article takes the view that the low harvest was caused by collectivization (he factors in the natural causes of the famine in later articles, based on how he completely neglects to mention weather in this article at all its clear that his position shifted over the years). However, its interesting to see that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500600
To be clear, that was authoritarianism, not communism.
Ah, communism is like unicorns. Many people like them but nobody have seen them alive. Because every communist state is not communist but authoritarian.
aUthOriTarIaN
The endless “that wasn’t Communism, it was authoritarianism” lines come from liberals sympathetic to the ideas behind liberalism, but who have not read theory nor truthfully examined AES states. No more, no less.
Actually yeah, I think just about every so called communist state is what would be called a failed workers state by the non authoritarian socialists.
And those “non-authoritarian socialists” are liberals.
Trotskist.
Ah, Trots. Spending more time splintering among themselves and refusing to work together to actually get anything done since Trotsky himself.
When does a Communist country become authoritarian? This line is always repeated by sympathetic liberals that haven’t read theory yet think they know enough to judge Leftist movements.
It’s a problem of psychology and scale. The communist system becomes susceptible to bad actors the larger the group becomes.
In point of fact: I fully agree that many Latin countries, absent US bullshittery, intervention, and fomenting of coups in the first Cold War, would probably mostly have wound up being successful.
But I absolutely do not agree that the USSR or the PRC should be held up as paragons of virtue of what a Communist system should be. They were very quickly corrupted by authoritarian leaders and cliques from the get go, which is genuinely antithetical to true communism.
How? What makes it more susceptible in ways that Capitalism is better?
Cuba is doing pretty well despite the brutal embargo.
No, they were not. This is vibes-based analysis mixed with Red-Scare propaganda. The USSR and the PRC were both Socialist (and the PRC remains so to this day). What do you mean by them being “quickly corrupted by authoritarian leaders?” You mean that they elected the wrong leaders in your eyes, that they should have gone against democracy?
Inequality shot far down in the USSR, and the Working Class was in control. That was absolutely Communism in action, regardless of your vibes-based analysis. Obviously many things also went wrong, they all had their struggles, but they were actually existing Socialism and should be analyzed as such.
I highly suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds.