6 ms·

> I bet there are quite a few people in the United States alone who would love to have this life, who would love to have a guaranteed job, a guaranteed roof ove

> I bet there are quite a few people in the United States alone who would love to have this life, who would love to have a guaranteed job, a guaranteed roof over their heads, and the heads of their children. I'd almost venture to say the majority of people, and definitely those who suffer from a disability of some sort; especially mental health, where one may not mentally function well enough from one day to the next to be able to reliably hold a job.

spwa4 1y ago
At the cost that the Soviet union imposed? I doubt there's even 100. There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. There have been many communist communes here and in other countries, like famously Israel and Columbia. All but single digits have been abandoned or sold by their inhabitants. So we've got plenty of historical evidence whether people would choose to have this life. All but a few dozen, out of hundreds of million, choose against it. Including all socialists, everyone in those demonstrations, ... demonstrating extremely clearly: without constant terror, socialism cannot exist.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  > There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. > All but single digits have been abandoned or sold by their inhabitants. The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    > Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint. You will pay taxes in a communist system. You will have to deal with all sorts of external influences in a communist system. > The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above No it isn't. These were voluntary sales (especially since most were abandoned, not sold. There was no profit in leaving, except in some cases). It is illustrative of the simple fact that given the choice, all but a rare exception chooses against communism. Or to put it another way: people REALLY don't want communism, and after trying it, that becomes worse. In many cases abandoning these communes required a large-ish group of people taking the decision together. In other words: they organized themselves to destroy their little patch of communism. Which illustrates the next point: > > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. > Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism. You just made an argument in favor of this. Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. HOW will you prevent it? State terror.
    - immibis 1y ago
      > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism comes in from outside and stops you practicing communism? The USA did bomb and/or coup most communist countries until they were not communist, so you may have a point but it wasn't clear if this is what you meant. > Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. Don't strawman people.
      - spwa4 1y ago
        > > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint > I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism We were talking about external influences. Period. Mentioned was taxes (ie. effort you have to put in to keep a state structure operational), and other external influences. By which I mean from acquiring food to dealing with the weather, and indeed, occasionally dealing with the fact that there are people outside working under other systems. But I bet for most communists it's, ironically, the communist state. That's the biggest external influence they have to deal with. This will include "capitalist expectations" ie. an amount of work you have to perform, without any reward, because that's what the state needs. That's what the state needs to exist, and of course to make the Kremlin look like it looks. > Don't strawman people. Then by all means do tell: how will you prevent people either individually or in groups from banding against the communist system? After all, almost by definition, that's in their individual interest because ... communist system. You agreed that it's necessary to stop this but neglected to say HOW you'd do it. In history the "white terror" is one example of how far people will go to band together to destroy communism ... Every historical communist state (after a short while) chose state terror: indiscriminate, industrial-level violence against individuals. Given that they didn't immediately chose this gives at least an indication that they tried other methods, which badly failed. Even Israel initially did that (well, the Arabs, not yet called Palestinians, did most of it for them), but then switched to give people a choice, which lead to near-total abandonment of communism (even though they kept much of the state institutions communism built).
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. I don't think you have an accurate appraisal of many socialist countries (e.g. Norway, Denmark). Meanwhile, it would appear that Capitalism inevitably leads to wars and requires frequent wars to feed the military industrial complex.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Those are capitalist, not socialist.
    - illiac786 1y ago
      The US used the word socialist is very strange way. Socialists and communists are not the same thing at all – except in the US, which is one of the very very rare countries that never had a socialist party as far as I know. A socialist party (labor, “social democrat”, etc) is what most countries consider “left” (as opposed to communists which are “far left”)
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        socialist != social democracy Socialists want councils and the political discussion to happen inside the party by party members, which is what there idea of democracy is. (The self-labeling as democratic isn't a lie, but what they perceive to be democratic.) A social democrat wants a welfare state with a democracy with multiple parties. In practice socialists strive to create communism, which hasn't really worked out anywhere yet. Some declared that it was achieved, but than later backpedaled and claimed it didn't really happened yet.
        illiac786 1y ago
        again, to each its definition, but you should be aware your definition does not align with wikipedia’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism The US have a very strange definition of the word “socialist”, which other english-speaking countries (and seemingly wikipedia) do not share. As an example, the european socialist party does _not_ strive to put communism in place. socialist != communist
H8crilA 1y ago
The problem is you'll probably live on something like $300/month, and the $ won't even be exchangeable internationally - think like food stamps but for everything. Or less. Unless you have connections in the nomenklatura, i.e. those who decide who gets which positions. University admission is handled by a similar circle. Let me quote the text: > An anecdote on this very topic became popular in the later Soviet Union. A young communist proclaimed victoriously: “We have founded a society where there are no rich people!” To which an old social democrat shook his head and muttered, “Actually our intention was to found a society were there were no poor people.”
- Mars008 1y ago
  > We have founded a society where there are no rich people!” Many in the west would like this idea. Try goggle "communism support young americans".
  - _mlbt 1y ago
    That is terrifying. Do they just not teach in schools how devastating every Marxist/Communist regime has been? Do people really think somehow that next time will magically be different despite all historical evidence pointing to the fact that this ideology is flawed at its very core?
    - Mars008 1y ago
      I think this is the result of woke shit pushed in education.
      - rcakebread 1y ago
        More like MAGA rewriting US Soviet relations history.
        Mars008 1y ago
        Looks like today most people don't trust both sides. Some choose to ride one wave or another.
inglor_cz 1y ago
You underestimate the inability of the Soviet regime to provide its own people with basic consumer goods. You would have a job and some money, but your money would buy nothing, because goods were scarce. Even finding good shoes would be a challenge and you would need to cultivate relationships with warehouse clerks etc. to get some access to stuff before it was stealthily distributed by underground channels to relatives, friends etc. Modern Americans would go absolutely ballistic if they came to a shop with empty shelves and a bored arrogant assistant who would jeer at their very question "I want to buy X".
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  > Modern Americans would go absolutely ballistic if they came to a shop with empty shelves and a bored arrogant assistant who would jeer at their very question "I want to buy X". Reminds me of an old Russian joke. In stores, you'd typically go to one counter to get some produce weighed, then to a cashier to pay for it. So, someone goes up to the meat counter, and asks, "Can you weigh me out half a kilo of sausage?" And the guy behind the counter replies: "Sure, bring some in, and I'll weigh it out for you."
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    Yeah, the old jokes are first class. "Capitalism is based on exploitation of a man by another man. In Communism, it is the other way round!"
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
      America is very egalitarian these days, even the rich women are empowered to exploit the poor women!
      - cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
pointlessone 1y ago
The description is not too dissimilar from a badly photoshopped motel ad. Yes, it nominally resembles reality but just barely and doesn’t tell you about all the nasty things that come with the tiny pool. Yes, everyone had a job. It was illegal not to have one. Jobs were basically assigned by the state. Most “normal” people could choose among a few OK-ish options. But if you got a hair out of line or crossed wrong people you could get assigned shoveling coal in a small boiler room or building railroads in Siberia. And if you didn’t want that job you became a criminal and went to some mine or quarry working double shifts for gruel in Gulag. Yes, everyone had a roof over their head. But that doesn’t mean space, comfort, or even privacy. It wasn’t uncommon to have no more than a bed and a small cabinet or chest. Most of the living spaces and urban areas were extremely depressing. It’s all grey boxes and muddy trails. The best you could hope for in most places is some trees and bushes adding a bit of green in the summer. There was very little people could do to change any of that. You couldn’t move elsewhere just because you wanted. People in cities with better professions could move if they managed to know the right people and could get a job elsewhere. People in villages were basically pinned to their colhozes. Their only option to see other places were a holiday trip if the managed to save up a little or to go into military and be stationed wherever. This lack of agency resulted in mass depression and alcoholism. Where do you think the grim and drunk russian stereotype comes from? It’s just the soviet reality.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  It's also almost on the level of self-parody: "In Soviet Russia we have eliminated all capitalist social ills. Unemployment is demoralizing and unproductive, so it is now illegal. Homelessness is unsafe and ruinous to the health of the mind, so it is against the law. Cancer is a terrible, deadly disease and also very expensive, so we have also banned it. And just like that, our surveys show 0% unemployment, 0% homelessness, and 0% cancer! Can your vaunted capitalistic West say the same?"
  - idkfasayer 1y ago
    It would be a funny parody, if the path to 0% homelessness wasn't so brutal: 1) start a civil war killing a few % of the population 2) take every large property in the country killing or driving into exile its owners 3) deport ethnic minorities and take their property 4) artificially create a major famine killing many millions of people and driving half the country into slave like labour 5) start a major war killing a double digit fraction of your population 6) rely massively on foreign labour and foreign aid during and after the war. 7) cause smaller wars and crises around the world to extort more foreign aid. 8) jail and send to forced labour camps everyone not performing a government assigned job. 9) collapse, the second you can't extort labour internally or funds and goods internationally

spwa4 1y ago

At the cost that the Soviet union imposed? I doubt there's even 100. There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. There have been many communist communes here and in other countries, like famously Israel and Columbia. All but single digits have been abandoned or sold by their inhabitants. So we've got plenty of historical evidence whether people would choose to have this life. All but a few dozen, out of hundreds of million, choose against it. Including all socialists, everyone in those demonstrations, ... demonstrating extremely clearly: without constant terror, socialism cannot exist.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
> There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. > All but single digits have been abandoned or sold by their inhabitants. The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism.
- spwa4 1y ago
  > Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint. You will pay taxes in a communist system. You will have to deal with all sorts of external influences in a communist system. > The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above No it isn't. These were voluntary sales (especially since most were abandoned, not sold. There was no profit in leaving, except in some cases). It is illustrative of the simple fact that given the choice, all but a rare exception chooses against communism. Or to put it another way: people REALLY don't want communism, and after trying it, that becomes worse. In many cases abandoning these communes required a large-ish group of people taking the decision together. In other words: they organized themselves to destroy their little patch of communism. Which illustrates the next point: > > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. > Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism. You just made an argument in favor of this. Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. HOW will you prevent it? State terror.
  - immibis 1y ago
    > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism comes in from outside and stops you practicing communism? The USA did bomb and/or coup most communist countries until they were not communist, so you may have a point but it wasn't clear if this is what you meant. > Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. Don't strawman people.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      > > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint > I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism We were talking about external influences. Period. Mentioned was taxes (ie. effort you have to put in to keep a state structure operational), and other external influences. By which I mean from acquiring food to dealing with the weather, and indeed, occasionally dealing with the fact that there are people outside working under other systems. But I bet for most communists it's, ironically, the communist state. That's the biggest external influence they have to deal with. This will include "capitalist expectations" ie. an amount of work you have to perform, without any reward, because that's what the state needs. That's what the state needs to exist, and of course to make the Kremlin look like it looks. > Don't strawman people. Then by all means do tell: how will you prevent people either individually or in groups from banding against the communist system? After all, almost by definition, that's in their individual interest because ... communist system. You agreed that it's necessary to stop this but neglected to say HOW you'd do it. In history the "white terror" is one example of how far people will go to band together to destroy communism ... Every historical communist state (after a short while) chose state terror: indiscriminate, industrial-level violence against individuals. Given that they didn't immediately chose this gives at least an indication that they tried other methods, which badly failed. Even Israel initially did that (well, the Arabs, not yet called Palestinians, did most of it for them), but then switched to give people a choice, which lead to near-total abandonment of communism (even though they kept much of the state institutions communism built).
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
> without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. I don't think you have an accurate appraisal of many socialist countries (e.g. Norway, Denmark). Meanwhile, it would appear that Capitalism inevitably leads to wars and requires frequent wars to feed the military industrial complex.
- Jensson 1y ago
  Those are capitalist, not socialist.
  - illiac786 1y ago
    The US used the word socialist is very strange way. Socialists and communists are not the same thing at all – except in the US, which is one of the very very rare countries that never had a socialist party as far as I know. A socialist party (labor, “social democrat”, etc) is what most countries consider “left” (as opposed to communists which are “far left”)
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      socialist != social democracy Socialists want councils and the political discussion to happen inside the party by party members, which is what there idea of democracy is. (The self-labeling as democratic isn't a lie, but what they perceive to be democratic.) A social democrat wants a welfare state with a democracy with multiple parties. In practice socialists strive to create communism, which hasn't really worked out anywhere yet. Some declared that it was achieved, but than later backpedaled and claimed it didn't really happened yet.
      - illiac786 1y ago
        again, to each its definition, but you should be aware your definition does not align with wikipedia’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism The US have a very strange definition of the word “socialist”, which other english-speaking countries (and seemingly wikipedia) do not share. As an example, the european socialist party does _not_ strive to put communism in place. socialist != communist

H8crilA 1y ago

The problem is you'll probably live on something like $300/month, and the $ won't even be exchangeable internationally - think like food stamps but for everything. Or less. Unless you have connections in the nomenklatura, i.e. those who decide who gets which positions. University admission is handled by a similar circle. Let me quote the text: > An anecdote on this very topic became popular in the later Soviet Union. A young communist proclaimed victoriously: “We have founded a society where there are no rich people!” To which an old social democrat shook his head and muttered, “Actually our intention was to found a society were there were no poor people.”

Mars008 1y ago
> We have founded a society where there are no rich people!” Many in the west would like this idea. Try goggle "communism support young americans".
- _mlbt 1y ago
  That is terrifying. Do they just not teach in schools how devastating every Marxist/Communist regime has been? Do people really think somehow that next time will magically be different despite all historical evidence pointing to the fact that this ideology is flawed at its very core?
  - Mars008 1y ago
    I think this is the result of woke shit pushed in education.
    - rcakebread 1y ago
      More like MAGA rewriting US Soviet relations history.
      - Mars008 1y ago
        Looks like today most people don't trust both sides. Some choose to ride one wave or another.

inglor_cz 1y ago

You underestimate the inability of the Soviet regime to provide its own people with basic consumer goods. You would have a job and some money, but your money would buy nothing, because goods were scarce. Even finding good shoes would be a challenge and you would need to cultivate relationships with warehouse clerks etc. to get some access to stuff before it was stealthily distributed by underground channels to relatives, friends etc. Modern Americans would go absolutely ballistic if they came to a shop with empty shelves and a bored arrogant assistant who would jeer at their very question "I want to buy X".

pavel_lishin 1y ago
> Modern Americans would go absolutely ballistic if they came to a shop with empty shelves and a bored arrogant assistant who would jeer at their very question "I want to buy X". Reminds me of an old Russian joke. In stores, you'd typically go to one counter to get some produce weighed, then to a cashier to pay for it. So, someone goes up to the meat counter, and asks, "Can you weigh me out half a kilo of sausage?" And the guy behind the counter replies: "Sure, bring some in, and I'll weigh it out for you."
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  Yeah, the old jokes are first class. "Capitalism is based on exploitation of a man by another man. In Communism, it is the other way round!"
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
    America is very egalitarian these days, even the rich women are empowered to exploit the poor women!
    - cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]

pointlessone 1y ago

The description is not too dissimilar from a badly photoshopped motel ad. Yes, it nominally resembles reality but just barely and doesn’t tell you about all the nasty things that come with the tiny pool. Yes, everyone had a job. It was illegal not to have one. Jobs were basically assigned by the state. Most “normal” people could choose among a few OK-ish options. But if you got a hair out of line or crossed wrong people you could get assigned shoveling coal in a small boiler room or building railroads in Siberia. And if you didn’t want that job you became a criminal and went to some mine or quarry working double shifts for gruel in Gulag. Yes, everyone had a roof over their head. But that doesn’t mean space, comfort, or even privacy. It wasn’t uncommon to have no more than a bed and a small cabinet or chest. Most of the living spaces and urban areas were extremely depressing. It’s all grey boxes and muddy trails. The best you could hope for in most places is some trees and bushes adding a bit of green in the summer. There was very little people could do to change any of that. You couldn’t move elsewhere just because you wanted. People in cities with better professions could move if they managed to know the right people and could get a job elsewhere. People in villages were basically pinned to their colhozes. Their only option to see other places were a holiday trip if the managed to save up a little or to go into military and be stationed wherever. This lack of agency resulted in mass depression and alcoholism. Where do you think the grim and drunk russian stereotype comes from? It’s just the soviet reality.

BobaFloutist 1y ago
It's also almost on the level of self-parody: "In Soviet Russia we have eliminated all capitalist social ills. Unemployment is demoralizing and unproductive, so it is now illegal. Homelessness is unsafe and ruinous to the health of the mind, so it is against the law. Cancer is a terrible, deadly disease and also very expensive, so we have also banned it. And just like that, our surveys show 0% unemployment, 0% homelessness, and 0% cancer! Can your vaunted capitalistic West say the same?"
- idkfasayer 1y ago
  It would be a funny parody, if the path to 0% homelessness wasn't so brutal: 1) start a civil war killing a few % of the population 2) take every large property in the country killing or driving into exile its owners 3) deport ethnic minorities and take their property 4) artificially create a major famine killing many millions of people and driving half the country into slave like labour 5) start a major war killing a double digit fraction of your population 6) rely massively on foreign labour and foreign aid during and after the war. 7) cause smaller wars and crises around the world to extort more foreign aid. 8) jail and send to forced labour camps everyone not performing a government assigned job. 9) collapse, the second you can't extort labour internally or funds and goods internationally