In the udssr food was ether subsidized (so very cheap, fresh bread was cheaper then pig food) or its was basically a novelty food , yes yes there was stuff in between like cucumbers which where subsidized in summer and expensive in the winter, thats why people in easter europe pickle there cucumbers, its was basically free food, get some pickles, get some bread and you have basically 50% of a meal for "free"
so why big gazongas?
Milk
do the math, milk wasent subsidized, people needed to find a way, to evolve....
Also ironic because irl it works the exact opposite. Modern agriculture over prioritizes pregnant cows compared to historically, and the hormones in it cause earlier and larger breast growth (on average).
I'm still skeptical of this info to be honest. I used to tell it to everyone when I was younger but around the time I turned 22 I remembered that I had originally read it in Playboy and it probably wasn't the most trustworthy information.
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's just that having better access to rich and nutritional food all day every day means you'll go through a healthy early puberty that can pack on body fat in places that you couldn't always if you didn't know when your next meal of boiled boot would be.
The same reason we're several inches taller on average than our ancestors. A surplus of food from an early age means we can get the most out of our growing bodies.
Food was dirt cheap if you could find it. Most blocks also had some subsistence gardens in my country because there was sufficient space between thrm to fence them off, cucumbers would be harvestable a few times throughout the summer, so were tomatoes. In the autumn you'd swap to carrots and cabbage. The last allotment i remember was 1/4th of a loaf per person per day so my family got over 0.5kg of bread, 3/4ths of a loaf. But sometimes they simply wouldn't have bread and you couldn't get yesterday's lost allotment, today. Given this, everyone was guarding their block gardens like their life depended on it.
The price controls were one of the problems. The bread vs pig feed thing is because a loaf of bread was locked at 16 kopecks (kopeck is basically a penny). Because making food cheap was part of the social contract; no more famines. State set bread prices (and everything else) and your wages, so things were priced and you were paid enough to live. Theoretically.
The problem was that a loaf of bread did not cost 16 kopecks to produce. People could buy as much as they wanted, till the bakery ran out. It was one of the things that wasn't rationed. So you could talk to your buddy who does the bakery delivery so you know when the bread comes in, and you buy up all you can. You take it to your garden, dacha (country cottage), or house if you live in a village, and you feed pigs with it. Pork is worth a lot more than bread, so you feed the pigs bread that was meant for people, price controlled so people could buy it.
So whoever showed up later to the bakery got not enough bread or no bread. There was never enough consumer goods because of this disconnect between prices, production costs and wages. You had to wait in line for everything; stores were the old general store model. You go up to the counter, and you tell the clerk what you want, and they tell you what they have and what they're allowed to or willing to sell to you. It was all about being first in line, or even better, knowing someone who'd put some aside for you. People had money to buy things, but there wasn't enough supply to meet demand. You would go to the store with your money and come away emptyhanded. Being connected was the most important thing; important people could get things easily that normal folks never touched.
Part of this was the inherent inefficiencies in a centrally planned economy. The bureaucracy that controlled how much bread to provide in a city was slow and everything had to be run up the chain. People also fudged numbers to enrich themselves (produce more but lie on the official numbers so they could sell the surplus off themselves) or produce more or less because it served some political purpose for your own network of influence's benefit (make more of one thing because it showed the factory manager was doing well or cut production of something else so a rival who needs that product falls behind). A big part is just the price and wage controls, which was the easiest lever to work and the one they were most reluctant to use. Bread prices caused the revolution.
Yah OP seems 14 years old. Just heard whatever wanted to hear about USSR. If USSR was a leader of anything in food it was food lines. Waiting for four hours a day in them because of how scarce they often were. Things like milk and vegetables.
This is a Reuter’s article, not a CIA paper (just released by them). It’s not a proper analysis; it’s a single journalist giving their interpretation of the data.
I believe the data. But the analysis is a single, overly simple line — “Generally held nutritional standards suggest individuals need fewer calories,
less meat, less sugar and more grain to stay fit.”
Quantity matters, as does lifestyle, not just proportion. This standard is somewhat applicable to the average American’s diet and lifestyle, but even then it’s oversimplified and potentially dangerous. Overeating is still healthier than undereating/starvation, even though neither is good.
- The average Soviet wasn’t getting as much food TOTAL. That factoidal standard is only applicable when you are overeating.
The average Soviet had a more active job (office work wasn’t as common); this means that they need more calories and protein.
Your brain is almost entirely fat and water, and it runs on sugar.
Firstly, who is this true for? Party members in moscow? It may be true on average if it contains the caviar class but the life of the average citizen it was common to skip a couple of meals a week on top of rationing. Secondly, even in this file do you not see how this is a worse diet?
unlike the glorious us of a. where no one has ever skipped a meal. or in the current successors of the ussr( eastern europe, central asia) who have converted to capitalism and have never not full bellies since
I don't care about usian brained freaks such as yourself.
Yes. As in the successors where at least meals are affordable and there are public services in place for those who don't.
But the absolute peak stupid of your comment is implying that because less than 1% of the population is dirt poor that somehow compares to most of a population being dirt poor.
So you saying big gazongas was cheeper than having a cow? Would the State own one gazonga if your wife had two gazongas? And if your neighbor’s wife had no gazongas, could he drink from your wife’s gazongas? Or at least from the one gazonga owned by the state?
no.. Lived in Central Europe in Poland .. not true.. Thats just how it was drawn in propaganda.. there are significant more large chested ladies in the US
I think the Soviet Union thing is less nazbol, and more that communism is an economic system that just so happens to line up with progressive politics today, but has no requirement to have progressive racial politics.
I honestly don't think that the USSR was very communist.
"Workers' control of the means of production" never materialized. If anything, it was more of a regression to a pre-Capitalist economic elitism.
Factories had little autonomy, their commercial goals and interactions set from above from Gosplan. Their managers and executive officers were Apparatchiks - political officials granted high-ranking positions as personal rewards for political status (usually for liyalty; sometimes as opposite, "exiling" influential yet disfavored politicians far away from the political sphere in Moscow).
Collectivization was done by force. Personal agriculture was heavily discouraged - outright persecuted during Stalin's Dekulakization campaign. Kolkhozes and especially Sovkhozes also worked according to top-down diktat. Teens, especially Pioneers and Komyouth, were forced during Summer to add their labor to the same kolkhozes.
Massive economic campaigns, such as the Tselina project, was done on the whims of high-ranking party officials like Khruschev.
A significant part of the early economy was upheld by forced slave labor, mostly through the the concentration camp system - the GULAG.
Movement rights were heavily curtailed. Closed cities abound.
Sure, Stalin industrialized very quickly - but so did Bismark. None of them are shining examples of workers' emancipation.
The average (white) American citizen at the time was more free to start their own business, or at least to personally move, migrate in search of better economic opportunity. Something as abhorrent as the Holodomor could not happen in the U.S., because, when it did, the Okies just moved instead of being forced en masse to starve to death.
I wouldn't say modern progressives align with the soviet union economically. Especially in the states they still support market economies, just with greater regulation and controls. The soviet economy was a planned economy, there are people who support that style, but that's more actual communists and not progressives.
I think Nazbols are just pure authoritarians. The state is in control and not much thought about anything else.
you only think it's weird cause you're on reddit too much... both in spirit and in practice fascists and commies agree on most things... it's basically only terminology and semantics that make them different
Perhaps unsurprising. Both ideologies couldn't be anymore different, but they're both extremist ideals, and extremism on either end can end up with very similar methodology ideas despite the end goal being very different.
Nazbols are basically just fascists but they like the aesthetic of Eastern European Soviet states. I saw a sign one time in Russia that was pro tsar and pro Stalin at the same time, so weird. It's just nationalism/fascism repackaged in red aesthetics because there's a nostalgia for an actually successfully imperialist nation, which Russia and the other post Soviet states are not, anymore.
Like these people are functionally entirely different from the communists of today and historically, I think it's purely aesthetic and in name only for them.
Like they never talk about workers rights unless it's how Fox News / Hitler speaks about the working class, as perpetual victims of immigrants and Jews.
Yeah p much my meaning, its all aesthetics with cherry picking of the aspects they like, which are inevitably the worst ones of the lot because they're just hateful jackasses.
They're not really that much different. And it's not just a "horseshoe theory" of extremism.
The core tenet of both Fascism and Bolshevik style Communism is authoritarianism. That's the thing that they have in common. Both are explictly formulated as a rejection of liberal individualism and a belief in the primary of the needs of The State over The Individual. The only difference is that the fascist conceives of "the state" as an ethnic or nationalist body that needs to be purged of parasitic non-members (the weak, foreigners, gays, etc) while the communist beleives in the "the state" as a universal body of workers that needs to be purged of parasitic non-workers.
If you’re referring to a historical understanding of communism as proposed by Marx and Engles, it is not remotely close to the politic associated with fascism. It was and is radical, but not extremist in the modern colloquially understood sense. There have been many extremist iterations of communist, or so-called “communist” ideology promulgated by various ideologues, dogmatists and reactionaries since then.
Yeah I'm not really referring to the historic version, I'm referring to the diet versions that certain people like to LARP and cherry pick aspects that they alone like. Basically Nazbols or just the really weird terminally online folks who act like they represent what it actually means while having fringe extreme ideas.
Careful now, it's catnip for us nerds.
I'll get coffee stains all over my precious structs... which are super cool, and have absolutely nothing to do with fascism, every one says so.
It's not sex appeal but the beauty standards. Both fascists and the USSR had a habit of depicting certain bodies to represent their ideals. Just look at Soviet art, no fat people (at least not in a positive way).
Capitalism on the other hand doesn't really promote healthy bodies and the OOP seems to suggest SRS is a product of capitalism/liberalism.
I think the person in the middle has a double mastectomy as you can see the scars underneath the pectoral muscle. So the post could be about totalitarian states promoting traditional beauty standards for women and capitalism allowing women remove their boobs or something about trans people idk.
It’s definitely about trans people. They’re talking about top surgery that trans men and some nonbinary folk tend it get. They’re doing the whole “the bad people are taking away our hot women by letting them transition”
Republican messaging is not based on policy, it is based on identity. Part of that is the stereotype that Democratic women are ugly and androgynous while Republican women are feminine and beautiful. They do the same thing to men, framing Republican men as muscular cowboys and Democratic mean as skinny and weak. Republicans do not vote for a better future, they vote based on insecurities.
Capitalism and Socialism ain't even political ideologies they are economical ideologies ,but the relationship between economics and politics is so intertwined that they end up functioning as both🤧🥀
There are top surgery scars. The person is otherwise quite androgynous, so it could be a few other things, but I think the intent is to show a trans man as in to say "Look what this degenerate society does to our poor, beautiful women".
Because we all know that trans people are currently thriving under capitalism and are the favorite group of powerful people worldwide.
i'm laughing because this is so bad faith he resorted to putting a man amongst the women. If he really wanted to play at this game realistically, he'd have to put any one of the many hot trans women that exist...... but then he'd he confronted with the realisation that the women who risked it all to specifically be a woman, would be the most well versed in what true femininity is
i think it was originally that someone will have had the transman in the communism bucket because of the right-wing transphobes think everyone left of hitler is a fucking communist. the 'fixed it' joke is them moving the current experience and society of --- let's say the USA --- as in the captialism bucket because the US is capitalistic and all critiques of US society blamed on commuinism are just critiques of capitalism.
Most people don't actually understand the political spectrum, so this photo may be a bit confusing for them.
A lot of people think
Right Wing = Misogyny, Racism and Transphobia
Left Wing = LGBT Lovers and Woke1(Moral to a fault/point of annoyance.)
Far Left = Communism
None of these are necessarily true. The right wing does absolutely use bigotry to attract voters because saying "I'll hurt women for you" is a way stronger message than "I want to funnel all the money up to the rich and corrupt your government. Yes my very existence is corruption, that's why government doesn't work." That's how they earn their votes. Nobodies voting Republican because subsidizing Musk and oil companies is "good policy", they vote Republican to hurt others.
In the same way that bigotry is a not a core platform of the right, but rather a trick to lure in voters, being morally good is not a requirement for being on the left, yes we have those people because they vote against the right wing that uses their suffering as a benefit for campaigns, but we also just have a lot of misogynists on the left too. Sorry but more than half of men are misogynists. And so are way too many women.
Lastly communism is 1 possible conclusion of being far left, but not every far leftist is a communist. I am as far left as you can be. I care about freedom post-paradox. I don't identify as a communist. I'm not anti-communist, but I'm open to other systems, including even heavily regulated capitalism, which is likely still not the ideal but holy shit it's all better than this system we are in.
Anyways, this post appears to come from someone who is pro-communism, anti-trans and anti-fascist, and that's a rarity but it's not incompatible beliefs. The left-right spectrum is exclusively about money and the systems of governance that enforce rules related to money. It's essentially Fair Government For All(Left) vs The Absurdly Rich(Right)
It’s an image of an example of a man with estrogen (or more specifically aromatase, the hormone which turns excess testosterone into estrogen) deficiency, with Elon’s face photoshopped on top of it
I honestly am only grasping at straws here, but I think it's because Communism has a lot of "big burly women" style characters like Zarya, and Capitalism is supposedly the free thinking one allowing men assigned female at birth to transition, and fascism is rooted in traditionalist aesthetics.
Again, this is just my two cents. I don't know though
no, there is a new transphobic theory that the medical industry is pushing people to transition because they profit from selling drugs and surgery. It ties into the same anti-vax anti-science conspiracies. Basically the people who never went to college and think they are smarter than doctors.
And that new theory is just more bullshit. Because if you ask any trans-hating conservative, they'll tell you that trans people are given their meds completely for free off our tax money.
I think the person is implying that the original poster is so porn brained that even when dicussing politics all he can talk about is if the women(and the trans guy who he definetly misgenders) of an ideology are hot and make his dick hard. And overall the post is just "look at how hot the people in MY ideology are", which is a common tactic in general even if you're not a gooner but he might be one in his case, who knows
There is a stereotype especially among armed servicemen that eastern Europe has some outrageously attractive women.
And yes, there are some absolute knock-out women running around over there, although a) rumor is they poof into little old babushka grandmas abruptly upon crossing into middle age and b) horny 20-somethings with no legitimate outlet also thought manatees looked like magic fish legged super models, so... grain of salt.
Ida Davies here, Q
uagmires previous dad. The "joke" is that capitalism causes transmen to exist. While communism and fascism is the solution to this "problem".
The guy’s transphobia is rooted in his objectification of women. He gets mad when women choose to do something that defy gender norms and become men because to him, they are just objects of sex appeal.
Maoists are just famous for being extremely weird about sex. There are strains within Maoism that believe that having sex is a waste of fervor that should instead be directed toward political action. The release of stress from sex = wasted political potential. Because the image is sexualizing bodies, the Maoist is upset.
Not even touching that this is a Maoist engaging a fascist on the nazi bar app.
Maoists are pretty damn homophobic and transphobic as well. Being trans or queer is not a fun time in China. It used to be even worse when Mao was around.
The girl in the Facism picture is wearing a Dirndl, a dress that while based on rural Alpine attire of southern Germany, Switzerland, and northern Austria as a part of the Tracht movement of fashion, which developed as rejection of French Fashion trends at the time due to the Napoleonic wars. Despite preserving a traditional rural wear of women, the dirndl is associated with German folk festivals or Volksfests. It usually refers to the modern designs, popularized in the 19th Century and are seen less as day to day wear and more festival and in some cases even wedding dresses. The Dirndl is most famously associated with Oktoberfest, which was the celebration of the 1810 marriage of Ludwig I, then Crown Prince of Bavaria and Queen Therese, and the party held outside of Munich for their subjects. Ludwig and his successors were all patrons of the fashion movement, so Therese wore a Dirndl at the wedding.
The fashion became popular in the UK (where any form of giving the middle finger to France is popular) and the U.S., which had a massive influx of German immigrants during the late 19th century (at 19%, German-Americans are the largest ethnicity in the U.S.) but the trends fell off in 1938 in these countries thanks to one particular Austrian born politician who built his party in Munich and saw Tracht fashion as the quintessential German fashion and some of his foreign policy decisions.
Center picture is a FtM trans guy. (So, in layman's terms, a girl who changed into a boy.
OOP seems to be upset about this, thinking that it would only happen "in the decadent, capitalist, west", and has thus resorted to fetishizing communism and fascism, failing to realize that both systems are oppressive and can easily present you with a hand-picked propaganda picture that does not reflect reality.
The user, posting that image in question, casually compared two of the most radical dictatorships, to the sex-appeal of the women inside said images, to then try and "parody" capitalism with the same fashion, but "ugly".
"Stop watching porn you degenerate loser" was response and call-out, to the pointles nature of that "meme"
Anyways.... I am running off now, before gravity inverts.
Oop is asserting that capitalism is bad because of trans men, while soviet communism and fascism is good because of sexy women. It makes absolutely no fucking sense, but thats just apart of the package when it comes to being a tanky.
The joke is transphobia. The person in the middle is f2m trans, the other two are traditionally dressed cis women. It's a pro-wrong side of the horseshoe meme mixed with transphobia.
this image is wrong, trans people can also openly exist under communism. gender transition (including surgery) is legal in china (but they do face other challenges).
•
u/qualityvote2 21h ago edited 16h ago
u/HimelTy, your post does belong here!