4 ms·

Russians have never had any real individual rights. Throughout their history the common people have just been resources enslaved to brutal overlords. The Sovi

Russians have never had any real individual rights. Throughout their history the common people have just been resources enslaved to brutal overlords. The Soviets were perhaps somewhat softer overlords on average, but the principle remains. The state will dispose of disobedient people the same way it would dispose of rotten potatoes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ZqBLcIvw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ZqBLcIvw0

codedokode 4y ago
That's how majority of the world lives though.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Yeah, and I wouldn't want to live in the majority of the world. Judging by immigration patterns, most people who live in the majority of the world don't want to either. It's one reason Russia's having issues with the T-14 tank, not only are a lot of its parts imported from the West, but anyone in Russia smart enough to help build a tank has almost certainly left for the West where they can have a better standard of living. Democracies have decisively defeated dictatorships and oligarchies at every turn for the last century, the fact that dictatorships remain as a lesser category of nation is proof only that human potential has yet to be fully realized.
  - codedokode 4y ago
    People who actually develop tanks usually have restriction for going abroad for 5 or more years even after they leave they job because they know classified information. So I don't think that they left the country.
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      Perhaps for those who start the job. But if you're a Moscow State University engineering graduate, why would you even start when there are better available living situations? Sure maybe some stick around for familial/patriotic reasons, but most are going to leave for greener pastures.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"Sure maybe some stick around for familial/patriotic reasons, but most are going to leave for greener pastures." Problem is that "greener pastures" allow very limited level of immigration.
medo-bear 4y ago
perhaps. but russians were always dicks to themselves first. however, ask the american natives and the blacks what they think about individual rights in the us but then again, for sake of fairness, lest we forget that russia, as part of ussr, was a pioneer in workers, women and ethnic rights. so much so that during the 1920s if you were a trade unionist, a feminist or fighting for national liberation of your people you most certainly ran the risk of being labeled a russian agent.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  A key difference being that American society has evolved over the last 200 years to largely outgrow the cultural elements that produced those abuses. We fought a very bloody civil war to get rid of slavery, and black people/women have had the right to vote for some time. We're also not massacring Native American villages anymore. Not saying the problems are 100% solved, but no one can argue it's night and day compared to 100 years ago. Putin by contrast is a return to a 19th century Tsardom in everything but name.
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    > We fought a very bloody civil war to get rid of slavery, and black people/women have had the right to vote for some time is that what gets taught in american schools these days? i wonder how the black and natives feel > Putin by contrast is a return to a 19th century Tsardom in everything but name what does tsardom mean? if anything putinism is a caricature of the russian government in Red Alert 2. by that i mean a mix of soviet and tsarist symbolism and orthodox church. its so bizzare
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > wonder how the black and natives feel That they’re better off than being slaves.
      - medo-bear 4y ago
        sorry to break it to you but black men and women are born free. its just that americans put them in chains. im sure that today they are grateful for being treated as 2nd class citizens
mfer 4y ago
> Russians have never had any real individual rights. To take a step back and think about things (not that I'm suggesting what I think)... in most places for most of history it's been about the group. The collective. Being heavily individualized is a modern and western thing. So, why is one way right and another way wrong? Note, I do not agree with what's going on with Russia. I'm simply bringing up the higher level question that's often assumed but rarely looked at.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  > So, why is one way right and another way wrong? There are conventions. That countries agree to uphold. In this case not upholding them is the "wrong" way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...
  - mfer 4y ago
    So side stepped the context of my question (group vs individual) and answered to the context of the parent.
    - alkonaut 4y ago
      I was specifically responding to your comment: there are plenty of charters and conventions and when they refer to human rights they refer to individuals not groups. Russia and others have agreed to (for example) the UN CRC meaning they can have any feelings when it comes to society vs individual but the rights of the child still remain.
- meijer 4y ago
  I don't think respect for basic humans rights and heavy individualization are necessarily related. They should be discussed separately.
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  Russia isn’t a country that’s about the group either though, it’s just a strong oligarchy. And not even an oligarchy that has roots in group based thinking like China, it’s very much an oligarchy born out of western individualism instead. More generally, I’d say that group based thinking should not be enforced by the government. A society based around “the group is most important” can enforce itself just fine based on societal norms and their consequences (who people are willing to interact with and hire for work). What a government stepping in and saying what sort of talk is acceptable does is freeze the society to what the government enforces. Instead people should be able to try and change society norms if they believe there’s a better way, rather than government forcing it to stagnate.
bpodgursky 4y ago
> The Soviets were perhaps somewhat softer overlords on average Most Russians in the Tzarist Russian empire could go years or decades without being actively oppressed — people out in rural villages could at least survive through benign neglect. There was no benign neglect in the soviet union. You were a gear in the system and if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp.
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  > There was no benign neglect in the soviet union. You were a gear in the system and if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp. Like you would be sent to a prison camp in the 80s? Just stop... Late soviet union was pure benign neglect.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp." I grew up in USSR. If you take late 70s and 80s (do not know how it was before) you would have to very actively open your mouth and be a dissident if you wanted to end up in prison camp even though it did not guarantee it. I left in 91 so have no idea how it later progressed from nearly absolute freedom at that time to what Russia has now with this maniac in power.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Russians have never had any real individual rights Russians had a real thing going in the 19th century. Turgenev [0], for example, wrote contemporaneously around when the serfs were freed [1]. Their history went in the direction of a series strongmen, similar to China today, but there was a balancing point when it could have been different. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861

codedokode 4y ago

That's how majority of the world lives though.

scottLobster 4y ago
Yeah, and I wouldn't want to live in the majority of the world. Judging by immigration patterns, most people who live in the majority of the world don't want to either. It's one reason Russia's having issues with the T-14 tank, not only are a lot of its parts imported from the West, but anyone in Russia smart enough to help build a tank has almost certainly left for the West where they can have a better standard of living. Democracies have decisively defeated dictatorships and oligarchies at every turn for the last century, the fact that dictatorships remain as a lesser category of nation is proof only that human potential has yet to be fully realized.
- codedokode 4y ago
  People who actually develop tanks usually have restriction for going abroad for 5 or more years even after they leave they job because they know classified information. So I don't think that they left the country.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    Perhaps for those who start the job. But if you're a Moscow State University engineering graduate, why would you even start when there are better available living situations? Sure maybe some stick around for familial/patriotic reasons, but most are going to leave for greener pastures.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Sure maybe some stick around for familial/patriotic reasons, but most are going to leave for greener pastures." Problem is that "greener pastures" allow very limited level of immigration.

medo-bear 4y ago

perhaps. but russians were always dicks to themselves first. however, ask the american natives and the blacks what they think about individual rights in the us but then again, for sake of fairness, lest we forget that russia, as part of ussr, was a pioneer in workers, women and ethnic rights. so much so that during the 1920s if you were a trade unionist, a feminist or fighting for national liberation of your people you most certainly ran the risk of being labeled a russian agent.

scottLobster 4y ago
A key difference being that American society has evolved over the last 200 years to largely outgrow the cultural elements that produced those abuses. We fought a very bloody civil war to get rid of slavery, and black people/women have had the right to vote for some time. We're also not massacring Native American villages anymore. Not saying the problems are 100% solved, but no one can argue it's night and day compared to 100 years ago. Putin by contrast is a return to a 19th century Tsardom in everything but name.
- medo-bear 4y ago
  > We fought a very bloody civil war to get rid of slavery, and black people/women have had the right to vote for some time is that what gets taught in american schools these days? i wonder how the black and natives feel > Putin by contrast is a return to a 19th century Tsardom in everything but name what does tsardom mean? if anything putinism is a caricature of the russian government in Red Alert 2. by that i mean a mix of soviet and tsarist symbolism and orthodox church. its so bizzare
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > wonder how the black and natives feel That they’re better off than being slaves.
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      sorry to break it to you but black men and women are born free. its just that americans put them in chains. im sure that today they are grateful for being treated as 2nd class citizens

mfer 4y ago

> Russians have never had any real individual rights. To take a step back and think about things (not that I'm suggesting what I think)... in most places for most of history it's been about the group. The collective. Being heavily individualized is a modern and western thing. So, why is one way right and another way wrong? Note, I do not agree with what's going on with Russia. I'm simply bringing up the higher level question that's often assumed but rarely looked at.

alkonaut 4y ago
> So, why is one way right and another way wrong? There are conventions. That countries agree to uphold. In this case not upholding them is the "wrong" way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...
- mfer 4y ago
  So side stepped the context of my question (group vs individual) and answered to the context of the parent.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    I was specifically responding to your comment: there are plenty of charters and conventions and when they refer to human rights they refer to individuals not groups. Russia and others have agreed to (for example) the UN CRC meaning they can have any feelings when it comes to society vs individual but the rights of the child still remain.
meijer 4y ago
I don't think respect for basic humans rights and heavy individualization are necessarily related. They should be discussed separately.
NineStarPoint 4y ago
Russia isn’t a country that’s about the group either though, it’s just a strong oligarchy. And not even an oligarchy that has roots in group based thinking like China, it’s very much an oligarchy born out of western individualism instead. More generally, I’d say that group based thinking should not be enforced by the government. A society based around “the group is most important” can enforce itself just fine based on societal norms and their consequences (who people are willing to interact with and hire for work). What a government stepping in and saying what sort of talk is acceptable does is freeze the society to what the government enforces. Instead people should be able to try and change society norms if they believe there’s a better way, rather than government forcing it to stagnate.

bpodgursky 4y ago

> The Soviets were perhaps somewhat softer overlords on average Most Russians in the Tzarist Russian empire could go years or decades without being actively oppressed — people out in rural villages could at least survive through benign neglect. There was no benign neglect in the soviet union. You were a gear in the system and if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp.

331c8c71 4y ago
> There was no benign neglect in the soviet union. You were a gear in the system and if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp. Like you would be sent to a prison camp in the 80s? Just stop... Late soviet union was pure benign neglect.
FpUser 4y ago
>"if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp." I grew up in USSR. If you take late 70s and 80s (do not know how it was before) you would have to very actively open your mouth and be a dissident if you wanted to end up in prison camp even though it did not guarantee it. I left in 91 so have no idea how it later progressed from nearly absolute freedom at that time to what Russia has now with this maniac in power.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Russians have never had any real individual rights Russians had a real thing going in the 19th century. Turgenev [0], for example, wrote contemporaneously around when the serfs were freed [1]. Their history went in the direction of a series strongmen, similar to China today, but there was a balancing point when it could have been different. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861