>>81601
>So it's not privatization because the "bad" guys get the share of the pie? Is this the "crony" capitalism argument?
If theft is suddenly capitalism then ultimately so is Communism. Unfortunately, capitalism is about private property rights and consequentially the voluntary associations that happen as a result of them (Trade, ownership, etc) whereas the state is about compulsory action (which is to say force). When the government takes resources (not gained peacefully) and gives it to various mobs and especially (and mainly) people who were already related to the previous government (Nomenklatures comes to mind) then there's very little to say about this being "privatized".
>. And it was the old empire officials that Lenin had to take back so they could help run the country after the bolshevik failure during the late '10s
Two things wrong with these propositions, A.) sure it had cumbersome processes, but it wasn't nearly to the level that the Soviet Union expanded it to and B.)
> And it was the old empire officials that Lenin had to take back so they could help run the country after the bolshevik failure during the late '10s
What's your source for this exactly? As far as I understand it, most old empire officials (the ones that mattered that is) either fought against Lenin in the white armies that rose up to try and suppress the Bolsheviks or ultimately became refugees and ran to places such as the UK. If you have evidence for this, do show me.
>What lame psychologizing. Yes, of course, so they're just "tricked" into thinking it was good.
If you're going to try and argue against somebody, at least try to understand what "rosy retrospection" is. It's not that they were tricked, it's that it's a natural psychological phenomenon in which people remember the past fondly whether or not it was actually good. No one tricked anyone and yet here you are speaking nonsense. Again, a good number of people who lived under Hitler also speak about how great it was, same with the people who lived under Franco, etc etc. This means nothing and once again, I can always just bring up accounts of people talking about how bad it was, this does not account for an actual argument.
>Famines happened, but this word implies there was a genocide, Ukrainian propaganda.
Calling things you don't like "propaganda", doesn't actually debunk the notion that it was a genocide whatsoever. The Soviet Union stole and seized food from Ukrainian farmers and peasants leading them to eat anything they can, from dogs to horses and even that wasn't enough to prevent them from dying in the number of a few million.
Stealing food from a large population of peasants who usually rely on that food simply to survive is quite frankly genocide, not a lot of ways around that.
>Never heard of shortages during that or any decade before 1980.
During the 1970s there was a big shortage of food mainly in places such as Poland and East Germany (I can't speak much for mainland Russia, but I suppose the 80s shortage was probably when it hit the mainland). This shortage of food and ultimately the subsequent rise in the price of food (while wages stagnated) caused riots, most notably the July 1976 riots, which as I mentioned, gave rise to the Polish group known as "solidarity".
>That's true but it depended where, in central cities there weren't shortages
That is until people actually came from around the country to the central cities in which case, the shortages came. Bread became scarce to the point where the Kremlin wanted the population to conserve bread for fuck's sake. Hell I'd argue that this migration of "shoppers" was part of the reason that the 1980s shortages were as bad as they were.
>No I'm not denying it, but besides not being able to criticize the party it wasn't as bad as it's portrayed.
> Not having the freedom to question those who have power over you isn't that bad
This is levels of state cuckery that shouldn't even be possible