URSS pill me

Here's a video of a guy that lived in the soviet union
youtu.be/69lFpVD7r6o

And why would it be unpleasant? The Stalin era "repressions" mostly affected party members and over-all did not affect 95% of the Soviet population whatsoever.

For the first time ever the people had proper housing when before they lived in what assorted to tiny log cabins. For the first time EVER the Russian people had a full education available to them basically for free. Modern and fairly advanced medicine and healthcare Ex. (invented organ transplantation) - for free etc. etc.

quora.com/Is-it-true-that-there-is-no-evidence-at-all-that-Stalin-killed-60-million/answer/Chuck-Garen

Attached: USSR greentext.png (659x767 302.87 KB, 110.47K)

Attached: sources on USSR.png (2267x8334 504.09 KB, 1.44M)

Like most of the world, Russia had anti-sodomy laws, up until Lenin declared the entirety of czarist legislation null and void, so he wasn't specifically concerned with the legal status of homosexuality, to be honest (as a side note, this happened before the formation of the USSR, so it applied to Russia only, so some of the other future Soviet republics passed their own anti-sodomy laws). Still, given Russia's backwardsness, actual tolerance of gays was another matter, and even the party had people who thought it was a "social ill", a "mental disease" or "bourgeois fun", but the actual government took steps to attack prejudice and achieve full legal equality and acceptance within medicine. The first health minister, Semashko, openly voiced full tolerance and support, both in and outside Russia. By the late 20s tho, attitude towards homosexuality began to sour, in no small part because Stalin had recently become the clear leader of the country (altho not yet undisputably so). He really did harbor no small amount of reactionary ideas, of which his authoritarianism was arguably one. In 33, he banned homosexuality accross the entire USSR, and that was that. Not even destalinization could change matters, because it didn't truly break away from Stalinism, given that it had become synonymous with communism, and the early tolerance and libertarianism never returned. Sartre famously said that "a spectre is haunting communism - the spectre of Stalin".

Here's some good context. The Bolshevik party before Lenin's death was an extremely democratic and egalitarian organization, accepting all walks of life and even social class, so long as they shared the political points. Lenin was extremely prudish and culturally conservative, but his fellow leaders at the time of the revolution and civil war included early free love advocate Kollontai (who also came from a noble family), the libertarian, anarchism-influenced Serge, freethinker Lunacharsky (who, along with other comrades, defended the peculiar idea of godbuilding), the openly homosexual Chicherin (it was a real danger to admit to it) and many others. But unfortunately, history saw that authoritarianism won out in the end, and by definition, it can't be tolerant. Serge, who narrowly escaped the Great Purge, nevertheless did not denounce communism, because he saw how the party operated back then. When people began saying that the authoritarianism of Stalin had its germ in Bolshevism all along, he answered with the same metaphor: yes, there was such a germ, but there were also a million other germs of all kinds of ideas, jostling to grow. But history favored the resiliant, iron-handed strains over the libertarian, benevolent ones.

It seems a bit deterministic, but I think it's fair to say that the conditions in Russia at the time simply couldn't let a soviet democracy thrive. First there was czarist mismanagement, then the chaos of WW1, and finally the ruinous civil war. It's impossible to overstate just how bad the situation in revolutionary Russia was, even far from battle zones. It's easy for people now in first world countries to look and judge brutal repressive acts, but they were in a really exceptional circumstance, which, I think, no other European country experienced in the 20th century, not even bombed-out Nazi Germany. America never was anything even remotely close to that bad, period. One misstep, and it would be not only the death of the first and only worker's republic, but Russia itself could collapse into dozens of separate countries.

The crucial factor is that Bolsheviks were absolutely convinced that Europe, especially Germany, was on the verge of revolution, so they figured getting started in Russia is fine since they would soon be joined by other communist States. But that didn't come to pass (thanks a lot, succdems) so the Bolsheviks saw themselves in the last situation they would like to be in: governing a rural, semi-feudal country that now had been ravaged by war to boot, all on their own, with zero international support, and plenty of opposition. All those factors were conducive to make the first socialist experiment descend into authoritarianism.

Attached: 3545a5ec51516802ede4b5594f3aeeaccf200329.png (531x2336, 127.69K)

Attached: d3daee56541821413ecfed25df92594ef7da4511a8700b2f6fa2d1bce5643419.png (801x608 114.47 KB, 199.21K)

Attached: Solzhenitsyn - Holodomor2.png (519x804 138.54 KB, 246.53K)

Attached: 60 millions.png (2000x1320 497.29 KB, 341.8K)

Where is this from?

It a copypasta from here.

Holy fuck, since when did my posts become Zig Forums material?

If you post it on Zig Forums, will they take it seriously?

youtube.com/watch?v=KgymF4oHztY

take the ice (pick) pill
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/

Yes it was shit.

watch michael parenti lectures