4 ms·

Come on! Did you live through Soviet style communism? Please don't glorify that BS unless you have. A party functionary would be entitled to free servants to he

by x0054 11y ago

Come on! Did you live through Soviet style communism? Please don't glorify that BS unless you have. A party functionary would be entitled to free servants to help them move, clean there garden, do all kinds of physical labor for them. Those servants were called enlisted soldiers. A party functionary would be entitled to a yearly, 3 month vacation on the black sea, where they would live, in a palace by the sea. And when I say a palace, I mean literally a fucking palace. There were very privileged people in the Soviet union. Now it's true that even those people would constantly live in fear, because on minute you could be on top, and the next you are dragged off by the secret police. And guaranteed house? Like the house that my best friend grew up, with his mom, his dead, and his sister, all sleeping in the same bed in their 250 sqft studio.

ido 11y ago
Hate to nitpick but you mean "dad". "Dead" means not-alive.
coldtea 11y ago
>Did you live through Soviet style communism? No, but I lived through a military dictatorship sponsored by the US (though, admittedly, 30+ years later Clinton on an official visit did say the US was sorry for its support of it) imposed on my country so that a large percentage of my countrymen who preferred socialism wouldn't attempt to try it. Oh, and it was preceded by a prolonged civil war (provoked by the UK, and with the right-wing side given arms and support by the UK and US in a typical Cold War scenario), followed by 15+ years of imprisonment, exile and even torture for tens of thousands of the most prominent left sympathizers, among them war heroes who had just before fought heroically against the nazis, like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manolis_Glezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manolis_Glezos So, yeah, there was that side too. >And guaranteed house? Like the house that my best friend grew up, with his mom, his dead, and his sister, all sleeping in the same bed in their 250 sqft studio. And in our modern day and age, in advanced countries, there are tons of people living all 4-5 of them on the same trailer house. Or even worse, being homeless. And that's in a place like the US. In Mexico, Latin America, Africa, Asia etc it can be much worse. So, while bad in itself, I'd say a guaranteed 250 sq ft studio for 4 people, plus a job for all of them, plus the basics, plus education, etc, sure beats people living in the slums in 1/3 of the modern world, e.g. as in: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/19/shopping.society http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/19/shopping.societ...
- x0054 11y ago
  So you lived through a military dictatorship sponsored by US and UK, and during that time tens of thousands of your countryman died due to the government. So obviously the Soviet system, which under the rule of Stalin killed millions of people (as in close to 50 million) during that same time is much better. Yes a job for everyone, even if that job is digging up ice dirt in the Siberian Gulag until you die from exhaustion. Come on, have some perspective, both systems are totalitarian regimes with horrible outcomes for the populations. In your case they were killing, torturing, and exterminating the left leaning intelligentsia. In the Soviet Union they did exactly the same thing to all the right leaning intelligentsia, actually all intelligentsia, because smart and educated people might see through all the bull shit the party was shoveling down people's throats. At the end of the day, in both cases a ton of people died horrible deaths simply because of what they believed in. How is one system better then the other? Well, other then in absolute terms, because at least in your case they didn't manage to killing quite so many people, but the outcome is the same. I am amazed that someone who lived through one totalitarian regime would be so in favor of another! Any system that subverts the rights of an individual under some bullshit pretense that it's for the "good of the nation" is absolutely wrong!
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >So you lived through a military dictatorship sponsored by US and UK, and during that time tens of thousands of your countryman died due to the government. So obviously the Soviet system, which under the rule of Stalin killed millions of people (as in close to 50 million) during that same time is much better. As an aside, the oft quoted “50 million” number is BS. It counts famines, deaths in the war, etc. That said, the regime did execute a million or so directly. OTOH, it was a period of revolution and turmoil (even if it was skewed by the rise of bureacrats, etc). Death toll should be compared to things like the Civil War, not to peacetime statistics. That said, I never mentioned USSR, and the “soviet system” (or rather “socialism” is not a single thing, nor where the conditions the same in every place. Poland was different, Czechoslovakia was different, East Germany was different etc. >Yes a job for everyone, even if that job is digging up ice dirt in the Siberian Gulag until you die from exhaustion. Are you really familiar with the history of those states, or just repeat what you’ve read or seen in movies about very specific periods and very specific countries? Because that reflects a tiny percentage of the Eastern Europe population, and for a specific period of time. If we’re allowed to cherry pick periods, we can say “yeah, land of the free, unless your job is picking cotton under Jim Crow laws”, etc. >In the Soviet Union they did exactly the same thing to all the right leaning intelligentsia Actually they did it more to the left leaning intelligentsia there too. Because the problem with USSR wasn’t that it was “too left” and thus despotic, but that it wasn’t left enough (e.g. the revolution turned right into a self-preserving regime). Those who were in the right (mostly wealthy families etc) had mostly immigrated to the west early on. It was the "more leftists" that got the shaft from Stalin and co (of course usually undersevedly labeled as "right"). >At the end of the day, in both cases a ton of people died horrible deaths simply because of what they believed in. How is one system better then the other? Well, with that metric no system is good. Capitalistic colonial powers, for example, have enslaved 2/3 of the world, hundreds of countries and billions of people, and have caused more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined (including the genocide of native americans). >Any system that subverts the rights of an individual under some bullshit pretense that it’s for the “good of the nation” is absolutely wrong! Well, and what about individuals in other countries, bombed, killed, having dictatorships imposed upon them by the same government? Just a case (there are countless others, in Latin America and elsewhere): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role... Or are only citizens “individuals” and foreign people don’t matter? Even so there are a million black people in jail in the US, aren’t they individuals or don’t they have rights? Or its that they are disproportionally criminal to the white population (which again has a disproportionate incarceration rate compared to the rest of the world). I won’t even mention the death penalty, which the civilised Europe has left behind. Maybe we should chalk that system as “absolutely wrong” too?

by x0054 11y ago

ido 11y ago

Hate to nitpick but you mean "dad". "Dead" means not-alive.

coldtea 11y ago

>Did you live through Soviet style communism? No, but I lived through a military dictatorship sponsored by the US (though, admittedly, 30+ years later Clinton on an official visit did say the US was sorry for its support of it) imposed on my country so that a large percentage of my countrymen who preferred socialism wouldn't attempt to try it. Oh, and it was preceded by a prolonged civil war (provoked by the UK, and with the right-wing side given arms and support by the UK and US in a typical Cold War scenario), followed by 15+ years of imprisonment, exile and even torture for tens of thousands of the most prominent left sympathizers, among them war heroes who had just before fought heroically against the nazis, like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manolis_Glezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manolis_Glezos So, yeah, there was that side too. >And guaranteed house? Like the house that my best friend grew up, with his mom, his dead, and his sister, all sleeping in the same bed in their 250 sqft studio. And in our modern day and age, in advanced countries, there are tons of people living all 4-5 of them on the same trailer house. Or even worse, being homeless. And that's in a place like the US. In Mexico, Latin America, Africa, Asia etc it can be much worse. So, while bad in itself, I'd say a guaranteed 250 sq ft studio for 4 people, plus a job for all of them, plus the basics, plus education, etc, sure beats people living in the slums in 1/3 of the modern world, e.g. as in: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/19/shopping.society http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/19/shopping.societ...

x0054 11y ago
So you lived through a military dictatorship sponsored by US and UK, and during that time tens of thousands of your countryman died due to the government. So obviously the Soviet system, which under the rule of Stalin killed millions of people (as in close to 50 million) during that same time is much better. Yes a job for everyone, even if that job is digging up ice dirt in the Siberian Gulag until you die from exhaustion. Come on, have some perspective, both systems are totalitarian regimes with horrible outcomes for the populations. In your case they were killing, torturing, and exterminating the left leaning intelligentsia. In the Soviet Union they did exactly the same thing to all the right leaning intelligentsia, actually all intelligentsia, because smart and educated people might see through all the bull shit the party was shoveling down people's throats. At the end of the day, in both cases a ton of people died horrible deaths simply because of what they believed in. How is one system better then the other? Well, other then in absolute terms, because at least in your case they didn't manage to killing quite so many people, but the outcome is the same. I am amazed that someone who lived through one totalitarian regime would be so in favor of another! Any system that subverts the rights of an individual under some bullshit pretense that it's for the "good of the nation" is absolutely wrong!
- coldtea 11y ago
  >So you lived through a military dictatorship sponsored by US and UK, and during that time tens of thousands of your countryman died due to the government. So obviously the Soviet system, which under the rule of Stalin killed millions of people (as in close to 50 million) during that same time is much better. As an aside, the oft quoted “50 million” number is BS. It counts famines, deaths in the war, etc. That said, the regime did execute a million or so directly. OTOH, it was a period of revolution and turmoil (even if it was skewed by the rise of bureacrats, etc). Death toll should be compared to things like the Civil War, not to peacetime statistics. That said, I never mentioned USSR, and the “soviet system” (or rather “socialism” is not a single thing, nor where the conditions the same in every place. Poland was different, Czechoslovakia was different, East Germany was different etc. >Yes a job for everyone, even if that job is digging up ice dirt in the Siberian Gulag until you die from exhaustion. Are you really familiar with the history of those states, or just repeat what you’ve read or seen in movies about very specific periods and very specific countries? Because that reflects a tiny percentage of the Eastern Europe population, and for a specific period of time. If we’re allowed to cherry pick periods, we can say “yeah, land of the free, unless your job is picking cotton under Jim Crow laws”, etc. >In the Soviet Union they did exactly the same thing to all the right leaning intelligentsia Actually they did it more to the left leaning intelligentsia there too. Because the problem with USSR wasn’t that it was “too left” and thus despotic, but that it wasn’t left enough (e.g. the revolution turned right into a self-preserving regime). Those who were in the right (mostly wealthy families etc) had mostly immigrated to the west early on. It was the "more leftists" that got the shaft from Stalin and co (of course usually undersevedly labeled as "right"). >At the end of the day, in both cases a ton of people died horrible deaths simply because of what they believed in. How is one system better then the other? Well, with that metric no system is good. Capitalistic colonial powers, for example, have enslaved 2/3 of the world, hundreds of countries and billions of people, and have caused more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined (including the genocide of native americans). >Any system that subverts the rights of an individual under some bullshit pretense that it’s for the “good of the nation” is absolutely wrong! Well, and what about individuals in other countries, bombed, killed, having dictatorships imposed upon them by the same government? Just a case (there are countless others, in Latin America and elsewhere): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role... Or are only citizens “individuals” and foreign people don’t matter? Even so there are a million black people in jail in the US, aren’t they individuals or don’t they have rights? Or its that they are disproportionally criminal to the white population (which again has a disproportionate incarceration rate compared to the rest of the world). I won’t even mention the death penalty, which the civilised Europe has left behind. Maybe we should chalk that system as “absolutely wrong” too?