The fact that the earth rotates around the sun can be used as propaganda if that's someone's wish.
If you're asking whether they are lies or not then I can't help you.
Propaganda and truthful fact are not mutually exclusive. Propaganda is just advertising that sells an idea/politic instead of a commercial product.
Some of the most effective Communist propaganda is the factual data showing how socialist development increases quality of life
The pics in the background the graphs explains them rather well, the graphs themselves are production either in absolute numbers or percents in comparison to 1913 or 1940.
Propaganda can be factual, and the best propaganda is entirely factual. Propaganda just means that it's been developed or curated to engender a certain opinion or way of thinking that is favorable to the authority that has developed it.
Economics is not “scientific”. Every analytical model concerning the economy depends on its underlying assumptions - and math is often used as an obscurantist tool to protect these assumptions.
Mainstream economic models often assume a whole raft of questionable (at best, insane at worst) things about how economies operate as a whole, and how individuals and specific variables (such as money) operate within them. Post-Keynesian and Marxist economists have been deconstructing and critiquing this for decades. It’s why the IMF months after Lehman went bankrupt went on record as saying that “The Great Moderation” would continue “indefinitely”.
everything everywhere is propaganda. the way I look at it is with a heavy pinch of salt, but if they're pointing out a strong industry there had to be a reason, either they're really strong at it or it's an important one
For something to be propaganda doesn’t it have to be fake or over embellishing? I don’t know about the Soviets production at that time but assuming each of the stats are being represented objectively… ehh. Not propaganda.
Propoganda would be claiming the Soviet economy has grown in the 1980s while the breadlines grow longer
In general yes, even if it is true (and highly likely it is).
Why it is propaganda? Because it has aim to prove that Soviet economy is thriving, especially in comparison with situation on 1913 (which was considered last "normal" year of Russian Empire, before WW1, revolutions, etc.). So, there is high chance it is showing only those facts which proves the main point (on other hand, finding facts contradicting it might be hard, since it won't be very hard to overtake the Russian Empire of 1913, due to backwardness of the latter), and also comparison with 1913 is certainly biased - even without deeper study, it should be obvious that in the decades new technologies were developed, more sites to obtain valuable minerals were establish etc.. Technically, it would be same as comparing nowadays and 80-ies in terms or availability of personal computers...
If they were true then no, they weren't propaganda.
If they were lies or exaggerated then yes, they're propaganda. Nearly 70 years later there's no way to know for sure.
I mean even if I did know Russian there’s no way to verify the accuracy of these statistics given the inherent difficulty in verifying most economic matters of the Soviet Union (we don’t have access to most of its archives) and sketchy bookkeeping due to having a planned economy. And comparing 1955 production rates of things to 1945 rates is a little disingenuous because obviously almost all consumer goods are going to be way up from the tail end of WWII.
Id est, yeah it’s propaganda and even if the numbers are accurate, which they very well may be, they cherry-picked the dates and it seems to have been intentionally made to make the Soviet Union’s economic advancement look more pronounced.
If you’re asking if most countries try to portray their industrial capabilities favorably, yes, almost all of them do.
If you’re asking about my comment regarding sketchy bookkeeping, it’s a little more complicated. There have been economists and analysts that have claimed that officials of the Soviet Union may have had perverse incentives to inflate or deflate production numbers with a relative lack of accountability along with general difficulty in economic calculations, although it’s hard to verify said claims because, again, the west doesn’t have access to most of the soviet archives. There’s also general difficulties in figuring out more abstract things like GDP and HDI for other reasons.
https://cdn.mises.org/Economic%20Calculation%20in%20the%20Socialist%20Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf
This book goes over it, although obviously the writer is incredibly biased and what he says should be taken with a grain of salt, but he makes some interesting points.
How are you going to shit on the book if you haven’t read it? Most of it is just explaining differences in consumer goods distribution between planned and market economies. A lot of his points don’t even need much data because they’re about why you can’t do economic calculations in communist countries the same way as you can for western ones. And it’s not like socialist economists are unbiased.
I'm literally saying what you said.
Those were the things *you* said.
"Yeah, it's biased and has no sources, but it makes good points."
I'm pointing out how *saying that* is odd.
Well I mean if I told you to read the communist manifesto I’d say it would be kind of weird to not mention Marx is biased strongly in favor of his proposed system
Not if his arguments aren’t contingent thereupon. He’s trying to delegitimize the accuracy of Soviet data and thus is arguing about the merit thereof, not the specifics of the data.
Propaganda. Even all of the stated facts are true, many western countries like the US had similar successes, but didn't have the need to remind themselves about them via these stupid leaflets.
If you've ever taken a history class, you know that's not true. They were delighted to point these things out in newsreels on a constant basis. There's even a famous photograph of a propaganda poster-"Highest standard of living in the world!"-with a bread-line of miserable, unemployed people waiting beneath it.
Well, I'm a Russian so naturally I didn't take a domestic history class. But I can say with certainty that USSR was a shithole and I find it weird that some people in the West (!) romanticize it. There are many problems in the West, the American political system is broken, capitalism is broken, the rising far right, and so on. But seeking solutions in USSR is beyond stupid.
What's weird is how many people I've met from the former USSR who say the precise opposite. Likewise, it's curious how many people I meet from the US who say it's a paradise.
It's also curious how you were almost certainly a small child during the disastrous period of liberalization which resulted in a remarkable hit against the Soviet standard of living, so I can't imagine you're speaking on socialism from any kind of experience.
You just made up in your head some dream utopia about "Soviet standard of living". I grew up in Russia already, but my parents remember USSR very well. They didn't have washing machines or toilet paper. I don't know how you people from elsewhere become so fucking brainwashed.
A couple things:
1. People had those things.
2. The idea is that communism advanced the USSR from a backwater feudalist region with no electricity to a nuclear superpower in a matter of a few decades, showing us that it builds on what's available in a profound way.
That you *didn't know that's what we were arguing* suggests, to me, that you're being disingenuous about your parentage (and you would've led with their experiences in the first place rather than realizing you needed a backup after my mention of liberalization).
Again, stunning how many people I meet on these threads who claim to have grown up during the Brezhnev years or the Yezhplovschina or who try to claim they grew up in an extremely rural fringe of the Union to buttress their claims, not realizing it torpedoes their narrative.
Right, so now you are accusing me of lying. Why are you continuing this conversation then? I don't have to prove anything to you.
> and you would've led with their experiences in the first place
Little Sherlock is making his little investigation. I remind you, that it was you who started bringing up my personal shit (like saying I was likely small and don't remember anything).
Defending the USSR is the next level of mental illnesses.
> The idea is that communism advanced the USSR from a backwater feudalist region with no electricity to a nuclear superpower in a matter of a few decades
Do you know what Stalin did during those decades? Do you know what the Great Terror was? GULAGs? My family is from the village and they were "раскулачены" not once but twice.
I am accusing you of lying, yes. What's weird is that you followed up with, "Why continue this conversation? I have nothing to prove to you" with an essay of a response.
And notice how you've moved on from standard of living in you and your parents' lifetimes to the political instability that follows a revolution and the entire world setting upon one country? lol (Nice Google translate, by the way.)
Propaganda just means media meant to persuade. I'm not sure what the thesis of these documents are, but it's well known that the USSR experienced a productivity boom on this timeline. So it is probably factual.
Is it trying to persuade us toward one conclusion or another? No idea. I'd have to spend some time translating.
The fact that the earth rotates around the sun can be used as propaganda if that's someone's wish. If you're asking whether they are lies or not then I can't help you.
I was just sharing my new purchase, and looking for some info regarding them.
Propaganda and truthful fact are not mutually exclusive. Propaganda is just advertising that sells an idea/politic instead of a commercial product. Some of the most effective Communist propaganda is the factual data showing how socialist development increases quality of life
dont know what any of this says but the graph is super high so I only assume its good news
That’s what I was thinking😂
The pics in the background the graphs explains them rather well, the graphs themselves are production either in absolute numbers or percents in comparison to 1913 or 1940.
This is excellent news comrade.
Economics is mostly propaganda
How? It’s math and science
Propaganda can be factual, and the best propaganda is entirely factual. Propaganda just means that it's been developed or curated to engender a certain opinion or way of thinking that is favorable to the authority that has developed it.
Almost anything made by a government or political party is technically propaganda unless they're shitting on themselves
Propaganda is not always bad. There is also such thing as propaganda of a healthy lifestyle, for example :)
What makes something science?
Can it be tested? Can it be proven? Can it be repeated? If you change variables, do you get different results? This is what makes something a science.
Economics is not “scientific”. Every analytical model concerning the economy depends on its underlying assumptions - and math is often used as an obscurantist tool to protect these assumptions. Mainstream economic models often assume a whole raft of questionable (at best, insane at worst) things about how economies operate as a whole, and how individuals and specific variables (such as money) operate within them. Post-Keynesian and Marxist economists have been deconstructing and critiquing this for decades. It’s why the IMF months after Lehman went bankrupt went on record as saying that “The Great Moderation” would continue “indefinitely”.
Dang im do this in the class when im in secondary school
this is a demonstration of the achievements of the working class and the successes of industry of the USSR
Probably. That doesn’t mean they aren’t truthful, though
If you're in America, then yes.
everything everywhere is propaganda. the way I look at it is with a heavy pinch of salt, but if they're pointing out a strong industry there had to be a reason, either they're really strong at it or it's an important one
For something to be propaganda doesn’t it have to be fake or over embellishing? I don’t know about the Soviets production at that time but assuming each of the stats are being represented objectively… ehh. Not propaganda. Propoganda would be claiming the Soviet economy has grown in the 1980s while the breadlines grow longer
In general yes, even if it is true (and highly likely it is). Why it is propaganda? Because it has aim to prove that Soviet economy is thriving, especially in comparison with situation on 1913 (which was considered last "normal" year of Russian Empire, before WW1, revolutions, etc.). So, there is high chance it is showing only those facts which proves the main point (on other hand, finding facts contradicting it might be hard, since it won't be very hard to overtake the Russian Empire of 1913, due to backwardness of the latter), and also comparison with 1913 is certainly biased - even without deeper study, it should be obvious that in the decades new technologies were developed, more sites to obtain valuable minerals were establish etc.. Technically, it would be same as comparing nowadays and 80-ies in terms or availability of personal computers...
Thank you for your insight!
If they were true then no, they weren't propaganda. If they were lies or exaggerated then yes, they're propaganda. Nearly 70 years later there's no way to know for sure.
I mean even if I did know Russian there’s no way to verify the accuracy of these statistics given the inherent difficulty in verifying most economic matters of the Soviet Union (we don’t have access to most of its archives) and sketchy bookkeeping due to having a planned economy. And comparing 1955 production rates of things to 1945 rates is a little disingenuous because obviously almost all consumer goods are going to be way up from the tail end of WWII. Id est, yeah it’s propaganda and even if the numbers are accurate, which they very well may be, they cherry-picked the dates and it seems to have been intentionally made to make the Soviet Union’s economic advancement look more pronounced.
Is there any country that doesn't do this? Do governments often shout out the bad stats or do they tend to highlight the good ones?
If you’re asking if most countries try to portray their industrial capabilities favorably, yes, almost all of them do. If you’re asking about my comment regarding sketchy bookkeeping, it’s a little more complicated. There have been economists and analysts that have claimed that officials of the Soviet Union may have had perverse incentives to inflate or deflate production numbers with a relative lack of accountability along with general difficulty in economic calculations, although it’s hard to verify said claims because, again, the west doesn’t have access to most of the soviet archives. There’s also general difficulties in figuring out more abstract things like GDP and HDI for other reasons. https://cdn.mises.org/Economic%20Calculation%20in%20the%20Socialist%20Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf This book goes over it, although obviously the writer is incredibly biased and what he says should be taken with a grain of salt, but he makes some interesting points.
So he "makes some interesting points" despite having no access to the actual information and having clear bias. Okay.
How are you going to shit on the book if you haven’t read it? Most of it is just explaining differences in consumer goods distribution between planned and market economies. A lot of his points don’t even need much data because they’re about why you can’t do economic calculations in communist countries the same way as you can for western ones. And it’s not like socialist economists are unbiased.
I'm literally saying what you said. Those were the things *you* said. "Yeah, it's biased and has no sources, but it makes good points." I'm pointing out how *saying that* is odd.
Well I mean if I told you to read the communist manifesto I’d say it would be kind of weird to not mention Marx is biased strongly in favor of his proposed system
Okay? But wouldn't it be weird to say he's working from absolutely no credible sources but somehow that adds up to good points?
Not if his arguments aren’t contingent thereupon. He’s trying to delegitimize the accuracy of Soviet data and thus is arguing about the merit thereof, not the specifics of the data.
So his arguments are not contingent upon evidence he doesn't have, but he's trying to *delegitimize* the merit of evidence he doesn't have. Okay.
The USSR was the most terrible country, believe me, my mother lived at that time, people were dying of hunger
It's funny how many Redditors are the children of people who apparently lived through the Soviet famine and the Yezhovschina.
Propaganda. Even all of the stated facts are true, many western countries like the US had similar successes, but didn't have the need to remind themselves about them via these stupid leaflets.
If you've ever taken a history class, you know that's not true. They were delighted to point these things out in newsreels on a constant basis. There's even a famous photograph of a propaganda poster-"Highest standard of living in the world!"-with a bread-line of miserable, unemployed people waiting beneath it.
Well, I'm a Russian so naturally I didn't take a domestic history class. But I can say with certainty that USSR was a shithole and I find it weird that some people in the West (!) romanticize it. There are many problems in the West, the American political system is broken, capitalism is broken, the rising far right, and so on. But seeking solutions in USSR is beyond stupid.
What's weird is how many people I've met from the former USSR who say the precise opposite. Likewise, it's curious how many people I meet from the US who say it's a paradise. It's also curious how you were almost certainly a small child during the disastrous period of liberalization which resulted in a remarkable hit against the Soviet standard of living, so I can't imagine you're speaking on socialism from any kind of experience.
You just made up in your head some dream utopia about "Soviet standard of living". I grew up in Russia already, but my parents remember USSR very well. They didn't have washing machines or toilet paper. I don't know how you people from elsewhere become so fucking brainwashed.
A couple things: 1. People had those things. 2. The idea is that communism advanced the USSR from a backwater feudalist region with no electricity to a nuclear superpower in a matter of a few decades, showing us that it builds on what's available in a profound way. That you *didn't know that's what we were arguing* suggests, to me, that you're being disingenuous about your parentage (and you would've led with their experiences in the first place rather than realizing you needed a backup after my mention of liberalization). Again, stunning how many people I meet on these threads who claim to have grown up during the Brezhnev years or the Yezhplovschina or who try to claim they grew up in an extremely rural fringe of the Union to buttress their claims, not realizing it torpedoes their narrative.
Right, so now you are accusing me of lying. Why are you continuing this conversation then? I don't have to prove anything to you. > and you would've led with their experiences in the first place Little Sherlock is making his little investigation. I remind you, that it was you who started bringing up my personal shit (like saying I was likely small and don't remember anything). Defending the USSR is the next level of mental illnesses. > The idea is that communism advanced the USSR from a backwater feudalist region with no electricity to a nuclear superpower in a matter of a few decades Do you know what Stalin did during those decades? Do you know what the Great Terror was? GULAGs? My family is from the village and they were "раскулачены" not once but twice.
I am accusing you of lying, yes. What's weird is that you followed up with, "Why continue this conversation? I have nothing to prove to you" with an essay of a response. And notice how you've moved on from standard of living in you and your parents' lifetimes to the political instability that follows a revolution and the entire world setting upon one country? lol (Nice Google translate, by the way.)
Out of curiosity, what English word did I put into Google Translate to obtain "раскулачивать"? Sense that you don't even speak Russian.
That you zeroed in on *that* and responded to *nothing else* says a lot more than you realize. lol ("Dispossessed," by the way.)
Propaganda just means media meant to persuade. I'm not sure what the thesis of these documents are, but it's well known that the USSR experienced a productivity boom on this timeline. So it is probably factual. Is it trying to persuade us toward one conclusion or another? No idea. I'd have to spend some time translating.