3 ms·

I would say that's because Eastern Europe has changed, to the better, and ironically in some regard because of his previous contributions. When Eastern Europe w

by d1zzy 9y ago

I would say that's because Eastern Europe has changed, to the better, and ironically in some regard because of his previous contributions. When Eastern Europe was still largely communist, his ideas of government and society (even if you don't subscribe entirely to them) were much better than the systems in place at the time. So of course everyone loved him. Nowadays with much of Eastern Europe having pretty decent democratic societies (lots of problems still and the Russian influence has grown a lot lately) his ideas aren't seen as a pure "positive" contribution but more like a variation with its own pros and cons of the systems already in place. Personally (like I said elsewhere in the thread) I own much of my professional life to one of his foundations and as such in my book he is a hero and a person that had a huge positive contribution on my life.

bobthechef 9y ago
Certainly, many of the conspiracy theories are silly, but it is simply a matter of documented fact and common knowledge that Soros funds political movements in Central/Eastern European (CEE) countries that would not have otherwise received that support in their own countries, funneling money toward political causes that emerge out of nowhere. That sounds a lot like foreign meddling to me. He was also active in the region before the fall of the Berlin Wall, propping up those he saw fit to prop up. The transformation process that CEE underwent from socialist, centrally planned economies to free market, democratic republics is a complicated affair and with time, we've been learning more about the kinds of backroom deals and controversial changes that went on. It is fallacious to say, as some do, that because these countries are better off today than they were under Russian-sponsored communist rule, there's nothing wrong with the way these countries transitioned or with the resulting status quo. It's also silly to characterize everyone who opposes Soros a fascist (the fascist rhetoric is getting tiresome and will ultimately dilute the power of the term when applies to actual fascists). These are false dichotomies. Of course, Soros is not alone in this regard, though he is an important figure. Piketty has called CEE "foreign-owned countries" given the extremely outsized control of the wealth and resources of these countries by Western companies (consider that 80% of the media in Poland are owned by foreign companies, mostly German). When foreign companies dominate the capital of a country and (usually through capital) influence the politics in a country, this is bad. Very bad. Then there are the problematic values Soros promotes. It's one thing to share what you believe with others and allow them the space to consider your views. It's another to insinuate yourself and your views through a web of NGOs and other organizations.

by d1zzy 9y ago

bobthechef 9y ago

Certainly, many of the conspiracy theories are silly, but it is simply a matter of documented fact and common knowledge that Soros funds political movements in Central/Eastern European (CEE) countries that would not have otherwise received that support in their own countries, funneling money toward political causes that emerge out of nowhere. That sounds a lot like foreign meddling to me. He was also active in the region before the fall of the Berlin Wall, propping up those he saw fit to prop up. The transformation process that CEE underwent from socialist, centrally planned economies to free market, democratic republics is a complicated affair and with time, we've been learning more about the kinds of backroom deals and controversial changes that went on. It is fallacious to say, as some do, that because these countries are better off today than they were under Russian-sponsored communist rule, there's nothing wrong with the way these countries transitioned or with the resulting status quo. It's also silly to characterize everyone who opposes Soros a fascist (the fascist rhetoric is getting tiresome and will ultimately dilute the power of the term when applies to actual fascists). These are false dichotomies. Of course, Soros is not alone in this regard, though he is an important figure. Piketty has called CEE "foreign-owned countries" given the extremely outsized control of the wealth and resources of these countries by Western companies (consider that 80% of the media in Poland are owned by foreign companies, mostly German). When foreign companies dominate the capital of a country and (usually through capital) influence the politics in a country, this is bad. Very bad. Then there are the problematic values Soros promotes. It's one thing to share what you believe with others and allow them the space to consider your views. It's another to insinuate yourself and your views through a web of NGOs and other organizations.