3 ms·

We have to thank socialism and communism for reducing wealth i equality in western Europe and in the US. But no, make no mistake, NOT because they are good, but

We have to thank socialism and communism for reducing wealth i equality in western Europe and in the US. But no, make no mistake, NOT because they are good, but because they're so disastrously bad, as was demonstrated by the USSR, that western elites did a lot to improve the working conditions of their workers, so they would put aside the comminust manifesto and would start caring about their nice car and a cosy house.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
So the first part of this is something I agree with, it feels like most of the gains came about because 'the rich' had to give 'the poor' something or they'd get rid of them in a bloody massacre. The history books are fairly clear on this, whether it's Magna Carta (rich lords putting the King on notice) or miner strikes. I believe Bismark is someone who made this strategy explicit. > The second part of Bismarck’s strategy to destroy social democracy was the introduction of social legislation to woo the workers away from political radicalism. During the 1880s, accident and old-age insurance as well as a form of socialized medicine were introduced and implemented by the government. But Bismarck’s two-pronged strategy to win the workers for the conservative regime did not succeed. Support for the Social Democrats increased with each election. I don't understand why the USSR failing or being 'bad' is necessary to further incentivize 'the rich', if anything I'd say the opposite is true.
gaganyaan 5y ago
Is this parody?
jkmcf 5y ago
Worker rights in the USA had been a big issue before WWI and the Russian Revolution. The USSR was bad because they were neither socialist or communist but an oligarchy bent on maintaining power at all cost -- just like China is today. The people at the top are the aristocrats in revolutionary France.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Workers rights were an issue everywhere in industrialized nations before WWI, it's just that the dam first broke in Russian Empire, with disastrous results. So all other nations took notice and deployed measures to not be the second country to have a proletariat uprising.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

So the first part of this is something I agree with, it feels like most of the gains came about because 'the rich' had to give 'the poor' something or they'd get rid of them in a bloody massacre. The history books are fairly clear on this, whether it's Magna Carta (rich lords putting the King on notice) or miner strikes. I believe Bismark is someone who made this strategy explicit. > The second part of Bismarck’s strategy to destroy social democracy was the introduction of social legislation to woo the workers away from political radicalism. During the 1880s, accident and old-age insurance as well as a form of socialized medicine were introduced and implemented by the government. But Bismarck’s two-pronged strategy to win the workers for the conservative regime did not succeed. Support for the Social Democrats increased with each election. I don't understand why the USSR failing or being 'bad' is necessary to further incentivize 'the rich', if anything I'd say the opposite is true.

gaganyaan 5y ago

Is this parody?

jkmcf 5y ago

Worker rights in the USA had been a big issue before WWI and the Russian Revolution. The USSR was bad because they were neither socialist or communist but an oligarchy bent on maintaining power at all cost -- just like China is today. The people at the top are the aristocrats in revolutionary France.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Workers rights were an issue everywhere in industrialized nations before WWI, it's just that the dam first broke in Russian Empire, with disastrous results. So all other nations took notice and deployed measures to not be the second country to have a proletariat uprising.