22 ms·

It reminds you of the Soviet Union because the underlying philosophy is the same. Equality at all costs.

by jpxw 6y ago

claudiawerner 6y ago
Was that really the philosophy of the USSR? Marx argued against the abstract notion of equality to begin with (and more concretely, the idea of equality between people) and Lenin explicitly rebuked the notion that equality means anything more than class equality for socialists. The whole phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is precisely against equality - it recognizes that people have different abilities, talents, capabilities, and things happening in the course of life, and it recognizes that people have different needs, wishes, and desires. Unless you're saying that the USSR's underlying philosophy comes from somewhere other than Marx or Lenin, in which case I'm curious as to what philosophy, and originated by whom, you're talking about.
- pandaman 6y ago
  >Was that really the philosophy of the USSR? It was. There was affirmative action for "ethnic minorities" too. Source: born and raised in the USSR.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > It was. There was affirmative action for "ethnic minorities" too. Source: born and raised in the USSR. Can you please link an authoritative source for this? Edit: found an authoritative source, no air quotes. https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/rightsviews/2017/11/07/soviet-affirmative-action-and-contemporary-inclusion-of-minorities/ https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/rightsviews/2017/11/07/sovie...
    - pandaman 6y ago
      I actually meant AA similar to the American one, for the school admissions. I don't believe the US has reached the USSR level of D&I to set quotas of minority representatives in governments of various levels (yet). And sorry, there is no source for this - even Yale does not publish their minority quotas or even admits they exist, what do you expect from the USSR Ministry of Education?
- a9h74j 6y ago
  This short video[1] seems instructive in terms of norms in the former Soviet Union. These are named as bad things in that context: "career builder", "initiative at work", some specific Russian noun for "different thinker". Then punishments for "non-conformity". Consider the phrase also said to have been popular in the USSR, "Everything Marx said about Capitalism was correct, but everything he said about Communism was wrong." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0g_Pqp7HoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0g_Pqp7HoA
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    Interesting, thanks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- unishark 6y ago
  > The whole phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is precisely against equality - it recognizes that people have different abilities, talents, capabilities, and things happening in the course of life, and it recognizes that people have different needs, wishes, and desires. This is not the kind of equality the poster was talking about. Forcing equality at government level does not mean forcing everyone to have equal IQ and work ethic. It means ignoring those differences and forcing everyone to get the same benefit in life even though some are less productive than others ("to each according to his need"). "Equality of outcomes" as another poster put it.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Someone is going to need to decide needs and abilities in that example, no? Would that not fall onto government in a communist state?
    - chii 6y ago
      > Would that not fall onto government in a communist state? and this is why communism fails, because an external entity cannot possibly know the true needs of the individual, and cannot act in the best interest of every individual. Unless somehow they are a benevolent god.
      - claudiawerner 6y ago
        Nowhere does Marx or any other 'communist' author claim that the state knows or pretends to know the needs and desires of the populace, or even an aggregation of their individual abilities. In fact, later 'communist' authors specifically say that it's up to the individual to sort out their needs and abilities, and to cultivate them.
        collyw 6y ago
        Then you get back to the problem that I presented - who decides the needs and abilities? At least with a free market we can be honest about trying to do as little as possible in return for as much as possible, and let the market decide what your abilities are worth.
- golergka 6y ago
  Philosophy of the USSR changed significantly over it's history, and it's actual philosophy, as applied in thinking and decision-making, was at times very different from the public image and propaganda. You're talking about Marx and Lenin, but one of the first deep changes in USSR history was Stalin's raise to power - and with him, complete rejection of the "world revolution" and nationalistic "socialism in one country", up to re-establishement of orthodox church in the 40s. Sovient Union was a completely different country with every decade of it's existence. In a dogmatic system it was not openly articulated, and leaders continued to pay lip service to "Marx and Lenin", but their real economic and political decisions were often in complete odds with the original values.
sul_tasto 6y ago
The buzzword now is “equity.” The left now seeks equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. All such initiatives are oppressive should be rejected outright.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  The Left here, checking in. No we don't. In the same way that the The Right, are not literally Nazis.
  - radegast 6y ago
    Oh okay. I thought those people in the streets were shouting something about reparations for slavery and what not. My bad.
    - concordDance 6y ago
      A tiny vocal minority.
    - 7sigma 6y ago
      Its not just slavery, its jim crow, segregation, black people being systematically disadvantaged through racist policies like getting higher rates on loans despite having the same risk. Also: - the New Deal excluded black people - The GI Bill excluded black people etc... Slaves built a huge part of the economy for free and americans benefit from that work for which they were not compensated, so yes there absolutely should be reparations. I think this should be done in several ways: - monetarily: by funding scholarships and other projects to remedy the injustices perpetrated and help black americans accumulate some of the generational wealth they have been denied. Although at the end of the day, no amount of money will ever compensate for the hurt, death and atrocities, its a start. - education: teaching kids at school what slavery was really like, instead of what some of the schoolbooks teach (that slavery wasn't that bad for example). Teaching kids about systemic racism that persists to this day. - policing, housing, prisons: watch 13th documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8) its free on netflix (edit: spelling and formatting)
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
“Equality” at all costs.
Upvoter33 6y ago
This seems like a disingenuous comment at best. For example, Harvard's incoming class was something like 25% Asian-American, which I think is probably the highest it's been (compared to Asian-American's probably being like 5% of the population). Whatever the policy is, it is not trying for "equality", nor is it really anything close to what happened in the Soviet Union. My grandparents lived there; some relatives were killed in the middle of the night because of their ethnicity. Nowadays, someone gets turned down by Yale, and these BS comparisons start up. Come on.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lopmotr 6y ago
  You can't expect them to be in proportion to the population. Asians are more intelligent than most other races so a top university selecting for the most intelligent people will disproportionately choose Asians. Perhaps the natural amount is greater than 25% but discrimination is holding them back.
  - echlebek 6y ago
    That's racist nonsense and it has no place here.
    - collyw 6y ago
      So pointing out differences in intelligence is now racist?
      - rscho 6y ago
        Well, you've got to admit that caucasian males (with or without blond aptly showered hair) aren't making the best impression, these days...
      - ralfd 6y ago
        I would say yes. But the more inconvenient question is if it is "nonsense".
baybal2 6y ago
> It reminds you of the Soviet Union because the underlying philosophy is the same. Equality at all costs. Cannot laugh more at that. The Union has never been, or at least not the union my father's memory, about that. It was strongly regimented, rigid, very hierarchical, caste society. The communist fraternity has been a model aristocracy, with its primary imperative being maintenance of party member's status, and privilege.
tsimionescu 6y ago
Anti-Jewish philosophy in the Soviet Union was not 'equality at all costs' it was 'jews are thieves' and other horrible racist beliefs, same as in most of Western Europe before.
- pps43 6y ago
  If that were the case, universities would not accept them at all. But they did, with a quota.

It reminds you of the Soviet Union because the underlying philosophy is the same. Equality at all costs.

by jpxw 6y ago

It reminds you of the Soviet Union because the underlying philosophy is the same. Equality at all costs.

Was that really the philosophy of the USSR? Marx argued against the abstract notion of equality to begin with (and more concretely, the idea of equality between people) and Lenin explicitly rebuked the notion that equality means anything more than class equality for socialists. The whole phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is precisely against equality - it recognizes that people have different abilities, talents, capabilities, and things happening in the course of life, and it recognizes that people have different needs, wishes, and desires. Unless you're saying that the USSR's underlying philosophy comes from somewhere other than Marx or Lenin, in which case I'm curious as to what philosophy, and originated by whom, you're talking about.

pandaman 6y ago
>Was that really the philosophy of the USSR? It was. There was affirmative action for "ethnic minorities" too. Source: born and raised in the USSR.
- eganist 6y ago
  > It was. There was affirmative action for "ethnic minorities" too. Source: born and raised in the USSR. Can you please link an authoritative source for this? Edit: found an authoritative source, no air quotes. https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/rightsviews/2017/11/07/soviet-affirmative-action-and-contemporary-inclusion-of-minorities/ https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/rightsviews/2017/11/07/sovie...
  - pandaman 6y ago
    I actually meant AA similar to the American one, for the school admissions. I don't believe the US has reached the USSR level of D&I to set quotas of minority representatives in governments of various levels (yet). And sorry, there is no source for this - even Yale does not publish their minority quotas or even admits they exist, what do you expect from the USSR Ministry of Education?
a9h74j 6y ago
This short video[1] seems instructive in terms of norms in the former Soviet Union. These are named as bad things in that context: "career builder", "initiative at work", some specific Russian noun for "different thinker". Then punishments for "non-conformity". Consider the phrase also said to have been popular in the USSR, "Everything Marx said about Capitalism was correct, but everything he said about Communism was wrong." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0g_Pqp7HoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0g_Pqp7HoA
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  Interesting, thanks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
unishark 6y ago
> The whole phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is precisely against equality - it recognizes that people have different abilities, talents, capabilities, and things happening in the course of life, and it recognizes that people have different needs, wishes, and desires. This is not the kind of equality the poster was talking about. Forcing equality at government level does not mean forcing everyone to have equal IQ and work ethic. It means ignoring those differences and forcing everyone to get the same benefit in life even though some are less productive than others ("to each according to his need"). "Equality of outcomes" as another poster put it.
- collyw 6y ago
  Someone is going to need to decide needs and abilities in that example, no? Would that not fall onto government in a communist state?
  - chii 6y ago
    > Would that not fall onto government in a communist state? and this is why communism fails, because an external entity cannot possibly know the true needs of the individual, and cannot act in the best interest of every individual. Unless somehow they are a benevolent god.
    - claudiawerner 6y ago
      Nowhere does Marx or any other 'communist' author claim that the state knows or pretends to know the needs and desires of the populace, or even an aggregation of their individual abilities. In fact, later 'communist' authors specifically say that it's up to the individual to sort out their needs and abilities, and to cultivate them.
      - collyw 6y ago
        Then you get back to the problem that I presented - who decides the needs and abilities? At least with a free market we can be honest about trying to do as little as possible in return for as much as possible, and let the market decide what your abilities are worth.
golergka 6y ago
Philosophy of the USSR changed significantly over it's history, and it's actual philosophy, as applied in thinking and decision-making, was at times very different from the public image and propaganda. You're talking about Marx and Lenin, but one of the first deep changes in USSR history was Stalin's raise to power - and with him, complete rejection of the "world revolution" and nationalistic "socialism in one country", up to re-establishement of orthodox church in the 40s. Sovient Union was a completely different country with every decade of it's existence. In a dogmatic system it was not openly articulated, and leaders continued to pay lip service to "Marx and Lenin", but their real economic and political decisions were often in complete odds with the original values.

sul_tasto 6y ago

The buzzword now is “equity.” The left now seeks equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. All such initiatives are oppressive should be rejected outright.

gameswithgo 6y ago
The Left here, checking in. No we don't. In the same way that the The Right, are not literally Nazis.
- radegast 6y ago
  Oh okay. I thought those people in the streets were shouting something about reparations for slavery and what not. My bad.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    A tiny vocal minority.
  - 7sigma 6y ago
    Its not just slavery, its jim crow, segregation, black people being systematically disadvantaged through racist policies like getting higher rates on loans despite having the same risk. Also: - the New Deal excluded black people - The GI Bill excluded black people etc... Slaves built a huge part of the economy for free and americans benefit from that work for which they were not compensated, so yes there absolutely should be reparations. I think this should be done in several ways: - monetarily: by funding scholarships and other projects to remedy the injustices perpetrated and help black americans accumulate some of the generational wealth they have been denied. Although at the end of the day, no amount of money will ever compensate for the hurt, death and atrocities, its a start. - education: teaching kids at school what slavery was really like, instead of what some of the schoolbooks teach (that slavery wasn't that bad for example). Teaching kids about systemic racism that persists to this day. - policing, housing, prisons: watch 13th documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8) its free on netflix (edit: spelling and formatting)

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

“Equality” at all costs.

Upvoter33 6y ago

This seems like a disingenuous comment at best. For example, Harvard's incoming class was something like 25% Asian-American, which I think is probably the highest it's been (compared to Asian-American's probably being like 5% of the population). Whatever the policy is, it is not trying for "equality", nor is it really anything close to what happened in the Soviet Union. My grandparents lived there; some relatives were killed in the middle of the night because of their ethnicity. Nowadays, someone gets turned down by Yale, and these BS comparisons start up. Come on.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lopmotr 6y ago
You can't expect them to be in proportion to the population. Asians are more intelligent than most other races so a top university selecting for the most intelligent people will disproportionately choose Asians. Perhaps the natural amount is greater than 25% but discrimination is holding them back.
- echlebek 6y ago
  That's racist nonsense and it has no place here.
  - collyw 6y ago
    So pointing out differences in intelligence is now racist?
    - rscho 6y ago
      Well, you've got to admit that caucasian males (with or without blond aptly showered hair) aren't making the best impression, these days...
    - ralfd 6y ago
      I would say yes. But the more inconvenient question is if it is "nonsense".

baybal2 6y ago

> It reminds you of the Soviet Union because the underlying philosophy is the same. Equality at all costs. Cannot laugh more at that. The Union has never been, or at least not the union my father's memory, about that. It was strongly regimented, rigid, very hierarchical, caste society. The communist fraternity has been a model aristocracy, with its primary imperative being maintenance of party member's status, and privilege.

tsimionescu 6y ago

Anti-Jewish philosophy in the Soviet Union was not 'equality at all costs' it was 'jews are thieves' and other horrible racist beliefs, same as in most of Western Europe before.

pps43 6y ago
If that were the case, universities would not accept them at all. But they did, with a quota.