3 ms·
Citation needed. Certainly for "99%" + "extreme poverty". Most of other claims are weasel-y. You could say the same about a lot of countries who then figured
by guard-of-terra 11y ago
Citation needed.
Certainly for "99%" + "extreme poverty".
Most of other claims are weasel-y. You could say the same about a lot of countries who then figured themselves out.
"the level of... political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept" is especially fun to read for a citizen of Putinist post-Soviet Russia. I not only understand political inequality but also experience levels of it that exceed what 1914 had to offer. For example, they had real Duma with real parties! That didn't always vote the same!
Hundred years passed and yet today we are far worse off.
- mercurial 11y agoI found this paper [1] which tends to show that pre-Soviet Russia wasn't that bad off. However, it's only based on data from St Petersburg and Moscow, so it's difficult to say how representative the conclusions are compared to the rest of Europe at the same time period. As for the Tsarist Duma, come on. It was only established after the revolution of 1905, and after 1907, the electoral laws were engineered to favour the ruling class and the pro-Tsarist currents, and the Tsar retained most of his authority. 1: http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b425c6ef3.pdf http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b4...
- guard-of-terra 11y agoStill it seems to be a better Duma than the one Russia has today. Modern Duma is young too, but really degenerate: voting unanimously, no opposition parties due to very high barrier to entry (by both not registering new parties and 7% elective barrier) and general monopolization of power in Russia. Rules now change before every new elections.