this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
135 points (96.6% liked)

Memes

53980 readers
1039 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Economic growth was positive, just slowed. There were numerous reasons for this, from recovery from world war II and the population crisis it caused, to needing to maintain millitary parity with a much wealthier adversary, to economic liberalization, but despite all of this, growth was positive and the systems working. Instead, the soviet union was killed. It didn't collapse under its own weight and failing systems, but was dismantled on purpose.

The idea that socialist economies were stagnating was used as justification for applying the Washington Consensus and shock therapy, where the west looted the former soviet union for parts and destroyed their economies. Key life metrics plummeted, production crumbled, and took decades to approach their soviet levels.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This graph would be even more damning if it included the fact that socialist countries economies were mostly real and material ones, based on production of goods, while the capitalist ones are propped up by stonks gambling and layers upon layers of financial instruments. If we deducted this kind of virtual economy the graph would most likely still be way below the 1991 line.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 days ago

Agreed! I touched on that a bit when comparing the USSR's GDP to the US Empire's current GDP below, but comparing to the current economies of Eastern Europe would be even better for proving just how devastating the fall of socialism was, that's a great point.