• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    I linked the absolute most liberal friendly source for you. Banning factionalism didn’t mean they banned democracy. Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits. You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s very kind of you to have chosen that as a source but it seems to have been an unfortunate pick.

      Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits.

      It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

      You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

      Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

        Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.

        Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

        Liberalism and fascism were banned. Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

          Liberalism and fascism were banned.

          So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that’s not terribly democratic if you ask me.

          Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

          It’s an empty formality when it’s a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

            Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.

            So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that’s not terribly democratic if you ask me.

            Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.

            It’s an empty formality when it’s a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

            This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.

              I wonder why something like the Soviet Union under Stalin would be called authoritarian. It’s preposterous!

              Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.

              It’s just that they banned every other party.

              This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

              Not so much tolerance for those viewpoints under Stalin.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

              Weirdly even this site puts it very bluntly: https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm

              Based on the link I would’ve expected something else, but they are pretty upfront about it. Interesting website.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                I urge you to pick up a history book on the Soviet Union if you think Stalin made up the entire political apparatus. Even the CIA disagrees with you there, because it was obvious.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Initially governing as part of a collective leadership, Stalin consolidated power to become dictator by the 1930s; he formalized his Leninist interpretation of Marxism as Marxism-Leninism, while the totalitarian political system he established became known as Stalinism.

                  Stalin’s Soviet Union has been characterised as a totalitarian state,[673] with Stalin its authoritarian leader.[674] Various biographers have described him as a dictator,[675] an autocrat,[676] or accused him of practising Caesarism.[677] Montefiore argued that while Stalin initially ruled as part of a Communist Party oligarchy, the Soviet government transformed from this oligarchy into a personal dictatorship in 1934,[678] with Stalin only becoming “absolute dictator” between March and June 1937, when senior military and NKVD figures were eliminated.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

                  I mean we talked if it was a totalitarian dictatorship or not. Sure does seem like it was.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?

        • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.

          What a bunch of fucking nonsense, holy shit…

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

      There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.

      And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.

        The USSR was overall very pro-science. In it’s early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population. Marxism itself is founded on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Certain liberal sciences had been, at the time, focused on Idealism, such as Race Science.

        And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.

        Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          In it’s early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population.

          So like the first 3-4 decades? Because they didn’t really turn towards pro-science until the 50s when their ideological science interfered with the nuclear program. And the charlatan Lysenko remained as the director of the Institute of Genetics until 1965.

          Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?

          Of course not. None of the voting results exist, at least I haven’t found any and I did search for them. In fact searching for them is how I stumbled upon the official voting guidebook where it’s written that the voting committee counts and verifies the votes, which leaves the door open for vote manipulation.

          Just as I can’t prove they were manipulating votes you can’t prove they weren’t and it comes down to whether you want to believe it or not. Personally I think if they have an official loophole to fudge results then the people in power would use it to stay in power.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            So like the first 3-4 decades? Because they didn’t really turn towards pro-science until the 50s when their ideological science interfered with the nuclear program. And the charlatan Lysenko remained as the director of the Institute of Genetics until 1965.

            Yes, growing pains take time to overcome. The USSR also made a great many advancements in the early years as well, being the first Socialist country comes with numerous growing pains.

            Of course not. None of the voting results exist, at least I haven’t found any and I did search for them. In fact searching for them is how I stumbled upon the official voting guidebook where it’s written that the voting committee counts and verifies the votes, which leaves the door open for vote manipulation.

            Got it, so no evidence, and pure mythology.

            Just as I can’t prove they were manipulating votes you can’t prove they weren’t and it comes down to whether you want to believe it or not. Personally I think if they have an official loophole to fudge results then the people in power would use it to stay in power.

            Ah, the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument. This is Idealism, and you are inventing reality to suit your personal narrative.

            • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Ah, the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument. This is Idealism, and you are inventing reality to suit your personal narrative.

              Except my argument stands on the fact that there’s an official loophole. Do you have any actual argument to back up the votes weren’t fudged beyond “I want to believe the soviets were nice people”?

              You’re free to go find the official voting information yourself, I’m not going to dig into that materials again just to find a document you most likely can’t read because you can’t read Russian.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                Except my argument stands on the fact that there’s an official loophole. Do you have any actual argument to back up the votes weren’t fudged beyond “I want to believe the soviets were nice people”?

                So does the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument. It stands that you have precisely no evidence and yet fully believe what you made up.

                You’re free to go find the official voting information yourself, I’m not going to dig into that materials again just to find a document you most likely can’t read because you can’t read Russian.

                Google translate exists, go for it. Find evidence for your claims and beliefs.

                • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Right. I misremembered, it wasn’t in Russian. Here you go

                  Viimased kanded lõplikku nimekirja tegi jaoskonnakomisjon valimispäeval, fikseerides valimissedelite väljaandmise. Vahemärkusena väärib selle toimingu juures mainimist seik, et valijailt kinnitust sedeli kättesaamise kohta ei võetud, seda asendas komisjonipoolne märge. Valimismäärustikud kõnealust detaili ei kajasta, kuid viite kirjeldatud toimimisviisile võib leida nimekirjade koostamise tehnilisest juhendist. (7) Esmapilgul võib asi paista vähetähtis, kuid see andis jaoskonnakomisjonide käsutusse lihtsa viisi ise „hääli kasti pannes” nõutav valimistulemus tagada. Selle kohta võib mälestustes viiteid leida juba alates Riigivolikogu valimistest 1940. a. suvel

                  The (7) reference there is for “ERA, f. R-437, n. 1, s. 1.” which is the official document that isn’t digitized. However you can take a trip to the Estonian national archives and you can request access to it. You can do that here

                  Now, where is your proof?