☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

  • 546 Posts
  • 2.06K Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 18th, 2020

help-circle






  • Existence of a ruling class implies there’s a class of people separate from the rest of society, such as the oligarchy in US where you live. That’s the actual oppressive society that you happen to be a member of. This was demonstrably not the case in USSR. Let’s take look at the background of the leaders of USSR to drive the point home. Khrushchev was born in a village in a peasant family, Brezhnev was a son of a metalworker, Gorbachev came from a peasant family as well. If it was as you claim, then people like this could have never risen to top leadership positions. The reason it was possible for a regular person from a village to rise to the top of the political structure was precisely because USSR was an egalitarian society that provided opportunity to everyone. The fact that you claim to have lived in USSR and don’t even understand the basics of how it worked is frankly embarrassing.




  • My family was a regular working family. I don’t know what this ruling class you speak of is either. Even if you just look at the background of all the leaders of USSR, they all have regular working class background. Meanwhile, last I checked churches existed in USSR, right to personal property also existed. The reality is that every society places some restrictions on personal freedoms, but claiming that the restrictions USSR placed on people were oppressive is the height of intellectual dishonesty.



  • I can say that with absolute confidence having personally grown up in USSR. Similarly, if you look at the public opinions from China or Cuba it’s pretty clear nobody is feeling oppressed. You can even login in to Xiaohongshu yourself and talk to people in China and see they’re not oppressed. Seems that all the people oppressed by communists are either scum bag capitalist or they exist solely in the deranged minds of western libs.




  • on a related note, Bertrand Russell made this exact point as well:

    This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that at a given moment a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?

    https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/










  • I love how you just throw terms around in an attempt make yourself sound smart. Nobody is appealing to authority here. What you’re being told is that you should educate yourself on the subject instead of spewing ignorant nonsense. Read books from people who spent time studying these things, and try to use the few precious brain cells that you possess to comprehend what they say. You don’t have to take them at their word. You can read the supporting evidence they provide, read what other researchers say, and then form an understanding of the subject. Or you could just continue being an ignorant clown.