I often see these words used interchangeably, though as I understand it there is a difference between the two ideologies, no?

  • AskewLord@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    USSR’s success was largely fueled my mass murder, political oppression, and lying about economic growth.

    they were ‘good’ at centralizing power to achieve certain goals, like military and the space race, but their economy outside of such priority areas, was in shambles. their agricultural and industrial capacity was terrible.

      • AskewLord@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        dude it took years for anyone to get a car. months to get household appliances shortages of basic things like office supplies were common outside of the government, etc

        it was shit outside of military production, because basically it all went to military production.

        • GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          They didn’t want to have private cars, public transit is much more efficient and more pro-social. People wanted cars, so they gave them cars, but the cars were pretty bare-bones and it took a long time to get one.

          They did have plenty of issues, and yes, they spent a huge proportion of their industrial capacity on the military. Do you wonder why they spent so much on the military? Because they were heckin’ bad authoritarians? Or maybe it might have something to do with having been invaded and losing 27 million people, and then immediately have their former allies turn on them and become openly hostile immediately after the war.