3 ms·

It's also par for the course for Gessen. She's extremely biased, and she doesn't even try to hide it. There's no nuance whatsoever in what she writes, it's all

by m0zg 7y ago

It's also par for the course for Gessen. She's extremely biased, and she doesn't even try to hide it. There's no nuance whatsoever in what she writes, it's all black and white for her. I'm not sure why she still calls herself a "jornalist". His statement, however, looks like something a US conservative would largely agree with: decries identity (in his words "atomization") politics (which Gessen largely supports), calls to strengthen traditional families (which Gessen opposes), calls for individual responsibility, etc. For the record: I don't know about his "anti-feminist" views, but I agree with what he says in that particular statement. It's directly applicable to the US as well - people are pretty much at war with each other here, and at least half the population is quite willing to give up their liberty for taxpayer funded government handouts. Having grown up in the USSR, I know where this particular road ends. There's one bit of context that people in the US will miss: the Soviet legacy. Back then people relied on the government for _everything_ and had little to no individual responsibility for anything. You worked for peanuts and by Western standards lived in poverty, but a lot of the stuff was "free" and you didn't have to worry about your future - it was largely predetermined. A large, older chunk of Russian population still lives like that and has futile expectations that the government will solve whatever problems they might have. The government stopped doing that some 30 years ago, but they don't know any better. I think this, and the extreme level of corruption, is why the GDP of Russia is less than that of Texas. IMO for a country with such insane wealth of natural resources, and a pretty decent education system this is shameful.

notfromhere 7y ago
The whole 'government doing anything is a slippery slope to socialism' is such a worn cliche. It's much more likely that having a large, disadvantaged population thats cut off from class mobility or basic life necessities is what encourages people to start dragging landowners into the streets. There's a reason why the Great Depression led to a number of relief programs - the threat of a soviet-style communist uprising was pretty high.
- m0zg 7y ago
  There also were some pretty great "relief programs" in the USSR at the time, where millions of people were relieved of their food and left to die of starvation. A government powerful enough to give you everything is also necessarily powerful enough to take everything. And "class mobility" is a 100% capitalist concept. Under communism there's no "upper class" to be mobile to. As of 2018, the US is experiencing the lowest poverty rate in history (considerably lower than e.g. UK, Germany, and France), and record low unemployment as well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/10/us-poverty-rate-fell-lowest-since-while-uninsured-rate-rose-census-says/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/10/us-povert...
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    Repeating things doesn’t make them true. People aren’t asking for the government to do everything, they’re asking for affordable healthcare and education
    - m0zg 7y ago
      But that's not what the government can actually deliver. All the government can really do is take money from one set of people under threat of violence, and give it to another set of people. That's it. It's a parasite. It doesn't produce anything. If you believe in the law of conservation of energy, adding government to any process will only make it less efficient. See e.g. US student loans and what that did to college tuition.
      - andrepd 7y ago
        Governments obviously do more than what your absurd statement implies. They are democratically controlled veichles of power. One of the things they do is some measure of redistribution of wealth, attempting to counter the capitalist tendency for wealth concentration. Bizarre references to "conservation of energy" (?) aside, you can simply look empirically. Places with low social and economic inequality are factually better places to live.
        7y ago

by m0zg 7y ago

notfromhere 7y ago

The whole 'government doing anything is a slippery slope to socialism' is such a worn cliche. It's much more likely that having a large, disadvantaged population thats cut off from class mobility or basic life necessities is what encourages people to start dragging landowners into the streets. There's a reason why the Great Depression led to a number of relief programs - the threat of a soviet-style communist uprising was pretty high.

m0zg 7y ago
There also were some pretty great "relief programs" in the USSR at the time, where millions of people were relieved of their food and left to die of starvation. A government powerful enough to give you everything is also necessarily powerful enough to take everything. And "class mobility" is a 100% capitalist concept. Under communism there's no "upper class" to be mobile to. As of 2018, the US is experiencing the lowest poverty rate in history (considerably lower than e.g. UK, Germany, and France), and record low unemployment as well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/10/us-poverty-rate-fell-lowest-since-while-uninsured-rate-rose-census-says/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/10/us-povert...
- notfromhere 7y ago
  Repeating things doesn’t make them true. People aren’t asking for the government to do everything, they’re asking for affordable healthcare and education
  - m0zg 7y ago
    But that's not what the government can actually deliver. All the government can really do is take money from one set of people under threat of violence, and give it to another set of people. That's it. It's a parasite. It doesn't produce anything. If you believe in the law of conservation of energy, adding government to any process will only make it less efficient. See e.g. US student loans and what that did to college tuition.
    - andrepd 7y ago
      Governments obviously do more than what your absurd statement implies. They are democratically controlled veichles of power. One of the things they do is some measure of redistribution of wealth, attempting to counter the capitalist tendency for wealth concentration. Bizarre references to "conservation of energy" (?) aside, you can simply look empirically. Places with low social and economic inequality are factually better places to live.
      - 7y ago