I would of have thought it was Romania, I mean, it’s right in the name
I’ve learnt recently that up until the establishment of the modern Greek state, the region of Greece was still called Rome: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumelia
Now, a large part of this is also obviously due to wanting to be a part of a more powerful state, which the USSR was in comparison to the Russian Federation, but this point isn’t great. I could make the same point and say that we should send pro-Capitalists to Somalia, it just doesn’t work well logically.
Putin is a dictator, and a terrible fascist leader, but he does legitimately have a high approval rating, mainly because you can’t go against him without putting yourself in trouble. I would not say that that means an unrelated question isn’t reliable, especially because Putin is a fascist and the USSR was Socialist, if anything it’s anti-putin to want the USSR back,
Large majority of Russians also want Ukrainians dead in a most fascinating ways. Weak argument.
Large, overwhelming majorities of Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians (hope it’s a word), Moldovans, Estonians, Poles don’t want to let USSR come closer than a shot distance.
My argument isn’t that Russians want good things, but that many people who lived under systems that can be considered Socialist absolutely do want them back. Of course the Ukranian war is unjustified, but that doesn’t mean that we can make up ideas about what people living in now-Capitalist states believe.
Again, this is the Somalia argument. You can find people in Capitalist nations that hate it too, does that nullify your point?
Ok let’s try to revisit it again. Of all the countries that freed themselves of a Soviet dictatorship literally zero want back, or are building ‘socialist’ economies. How about taking their experience as a measure?
Full disclosure, I’m living in a Western social democratic nation and am horrified by the capitalist and/or neoliberal ideologies. I am of a strong belief that neither of opposite ends of political philosophies bring good and prosperity for ordinary people.
Many do want the USSR back, because it was generally a better organization of the economy than what Capitalism and in some cases fascism has done for these countries. People who lived farther from Moscow had it far worse under the USSR, of course, but the people legitimately seem to have more of a longing for the USSR than anything else.
If approval rating was anything to go by alone though, then we could say Mao, Putin, and Kim Jong Un were some of the most successful leaders in history, and I don’t think either of us are saying that.
My point is firmly against the idea that Socialism is bad because many people who lived in one form of Socialism hated it, that’s an incomplete logical chain.
For what it’s worth, I’m firmly pro-Socialist, just not pro-USSR. I firmly believe that workers should own and control the Means of Production.
Primo, I respect you and your point of view even if I find it wrong.
Secondo, first sentence is factually incorrect and there are plenty of evidence. In particular about soviets, for starters I recommend you reading memories of Zara Witkin.
Tertio, you find opinions of russians valuable, and simply discard reference to the half a dozen of Independent nations who (willingly or not) share origin story with USSR
I’ll mirror your point and say I respect you and your point of view, even if I find it wrong.
Secondly, I’ll also mirror you and state that the majority of Russians that lived in the USSR that are alive today want it back. 1932 was just the beginning of the USSR, barely a quarter century from Feudalism! Absolutely nobody is saying they want to go back to a developing country.
A more accurate look would be what the USSR looked like post-WWII, pre-collapse.
Blackshirts and Reds is a pretty good book, not too long, that might give you a different perspective. Additionally, Robert Thurston is a historian who actually lived in the USSR and participated in local elections, despite not being a citizen, because he was a Worker. Additional, conflicting views, if you want to check.
Again, I’m not pro-ussr, but I am trying to dispel some myths here.
Do the actual Russian citizens want that, or are they just silenced? I remember hearing about protests in Russia over the Ukrainian war, but that just leads to a bunch of arrests.
Let me know where in my comment I lost you. I didn’t say Russians good Putin bad. I said there are Russians that don’t agree with the Russian authoritarian government. What a revolutionary concept.
This thread is lit. I’m going to list 4 arrangements of the economy. If you are interested in participating, name what you think each one is:
1: A small group of people own the lands that are worked by another group of people. The leader of these owners is chosen via divine right. The people who work the land keep what they make, however for protection they must work other lands and do not keep what is made from them
A small group of people hold dominion of a large group of people. The large group must work for food, lodging, etc. and are forced to do so by the threat of death and physical punishment. They do not get to keep what they make, the economic situation is determined by the generosity of those who hole dominion over them
A small group of people own the majority of wealth in the form of businesses, factories, goods, etc. They purchase the time of a much larger group of people who sell their labour to make ends meet. The small group decides what to do with the excess goods, services, and money.
A large group of people own the businesses, factories, goods, etc. These people work to make ends meet and decide collectively (democratically or through other means) what to do with the excess goods services, money, etc.
I hope these are both clear and vague enough. Good luck!
Not from “the west” from “the rich”. There are rich people in every type of economy that use their money to gain more power. One of the many ways that is done is with propaganda to convince those with less that the rich in power are not the problem.
Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics. Beaurocracy becomes a new kind of power currency, which is why much of the Politburo in the USSR was corrupt, though its worth noting that their disparity levels were lower than currently in the Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation’s “Oligarchs” are a spooky word for Capitalists that dodges the fact that they are Capitalists that took advantage of the collapse of the USSR to gain massive outsized power and wealth. The Russian Federation is Capitalist, not Socialist.
Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics.
You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.
Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.
Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.
That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.
It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.
And those people exist in all types of economic systems.
Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.
That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.
I did not say you could not eliminate the influence of money on politics, did I? You did. I countered it, and now you’re implying that it’s impossible to completely get rid of.
You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.
What hierarchy? Statist hierarchy? That’s why the goal of Socialism is Communism, and nobody has reached Communism yet. Do you think we live at the end of history?
I think it can be achieved because it’s based in logical progression of real systems. If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France, with a similar lack of logical foundation, I don’t think your argument holds any water. It’s more like a strainer than a bowl.
If it just needs to be “based in logical progression of real systems” to achieve the goal, then why has it not succeeded yet after centuries of existence?
If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France
My argument that disparity is caused by people pursuing power and not economic systems?
Please explain how your example of France proves my argument wrong.
Here’s perhaps the funniest use of your own terrible argument: you believe that humans cannot land on Mars, because it hasn’t happened yet, at least if you’re at all logically consistent. You also believe the iPhone 20 will never exist, of course.
See why your argument that “if this is what happens over time, why hasn’t it happened now?” is horrible? You make no actual analysis, in fact, you run from analysis.
Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it is guaranteed to happen in the future.
I didn’t think that I needed to explain that to you. I was wrong. Sorry.
I am not saying things can’t happen if they haven’t happened yet.
I am saying if Socialism and Communism have existed for centuries and that whole time they have had disparity. What reason is there to believe that disparity cannot exist in socialist or communist economies?
I didn’t move the goalpost, Communism as a concept is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society that can be achieved after Socialism has built the groundwork for it. It hasn’t been achieved yet, because there have been no developed Socialist states yet, and Communism is a global, international system. It takes a long time to get there, it isn’t just something that poofs into existence.
It’s a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. It’s hard to build, but it’s possible to build towards, and will take time and development to get there.
Linux phones will need to run established Android apps to get users, devs won’t move where there is no users, users won’t move there if there aren’t apps. It’s almost cyclical
Right now we’re working with people who are exceptions to this, users who want to experiment and devs who don’t care about money.
During protests in Moscow one man threw paper cup in general direction of police. Paper cup hit policeman in full gear in helmet. Later police raided his home. There are even memes about paper cup.
Closest one I’ve found to a AAA studio that doesn’t suck is Techland. Dying Light 2 was a very underwhelming release, but at least they’ve mostly fixed the game and are still updating it and listening to the community.
It’s not a default one, name is HiQDock. Though, it’s not very usable. As there’s no transparency supported, it takes screenshot of a background, so it might cause graphical glitches. The default dock (see the screen with Cave Story) is much better, works perfect
lemmy.ml
Top