Ukraine expands martial law to boost defences near occupied areas
www.euronews.com
Kyiv notified the Council of Europe of changes to its martial law, in effect since February 2022. #EuropeNews

The western values Ukraine is defending are becoming more apparent by the day.

  • hrosts@lemm.ee
    26·
    8 months ago

    Was USSR a democracy under Stalin? Are Russia and China imperialist?

          • hrosts@lemm.ee
            11·
            8 months ago

            Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership

            Collective leadership is rule of the Politbureau - a group of ~10 party officials, of the Council of Ministers - a group of 7 bureaucrats, and of the Central Committee - a group of several dozen party officials, picked by the leadership from the GenSec’s loyalists. Stalin held presiding positions in all three.

            Party oligarchy is different from a one-man dictatorship, and CIA agrees on that.

            I don’t know how that helps your point though.

            • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
              1·
              8 months ago

              Okay mister Bolshevik. What you write is contrary to everything that I’ve read about soviet governance, but I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.

              The collective west is currently taking part in an active genocide, out in the open for all to see. But gommunism bad holodomor vuvuzela no iPhone. We can’t upset the genocidal ruling class now, can we?

              • hrosts@lemm.ee
                1·
                8 months ago

                Okay mister Bolshevik. What you write is contrary to everything that I’ve read about soviet governance, but I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.

                I am neither a mister nor a Bolshevik. If you don’t know the meaning of “collective leadership”, then it’s on you.

                The collective west is currently taking part in an active genocide, out in the open for all to see. But gommunism bad holodomor vuvuzela no iPhone. We can’t upset the genocidal ruling class now, can we?

                Are you having a stroke?

                • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                  1·
                  8 months ago

                  I am neither a mister nor a Bolshevik.

                  I’ll take the L on this one. I shouldn’t have assumed your gender. I’m sorry.

                  The Bolshevik thing was sarcasm.

              • hrosts@lemm.ee
                1·
                8 months ago

                Regarding what CIA means by “collective leadership”:

                https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-01446R000100020012-2.pdf

                It is entirely possible that the Soviet leaders are about to develop a new form of “dictatorship by committee”, giving them the advantage of appearing to be quasi-democratic.

                When we speak of collective leadership, we mean a committee of a very few men, probably not more than five or six. The larger the membership, the greater the likelihood that fractionalization may occur, dividing the committee into antagonistic groups.

                • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                  1·
                  8 months ago

                  So the CIA calls him a dictator in one memo and not in another. I suppose that proves nothing in the end. Except that the CIA clearly doesn’t understand Soviet governance based on the other details in the memo that you linked.

                  • hrosts@lemm.ee
                    1·
                    8 months ago

                    They call Soviet leadership a party oligarchy in both cases. They do not “agree” with you in any way shape or form.

    • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
      7·
      8 months ago

      In the despotic East, the people are forced to have free housing and highly subsidised food despite having sanctioned war torn peasant economies, in the democratic West, they choose to starve on the streets despite having more wealth than any other countries in history.

      It’s really quite a conundrum.

      • hrosts@lemm.ee
        15·
        8 months ago

        There are multiple ways to interpret this. I have no interest in guessing.

        State your point.

        • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
          6·
          8 months ago

          It’s sarcasm about how you think the USSR was not democratic despite it being able to feed, clothe and house all of its citizens even under immense economic pressure. Things which the so called democracies of today, despite being orders of magnitudes wealthier still choose to not do.

          • hrosts@lemm.ee
            15·
            8 months ago

            So democracy to you is when a state does SocDem welfare policies?

            I would understand if, as a purported socialist, you wanted to tie democracy to communism, as bourgeois democracy democratizes only the superstrucure, and even that one just partially. But that tie-in would clearly be hard to accept if you wanted to argue for USSR being democratic, as it was far from a stateless classless moneyless society.

            Still - why social democracy? Why welfare? It’s kinda of a weird choice, unless you tie the idea of democracy to the liberal-fascist “will of the people” concept. But that would imply very bad things about your views, friend.

            • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
              5·
              8 months ago

              So democracy to you is when a state does SocDem welfare policies?

              A state only does welfare policies when it is compelled to by democratic forces. After WW2, western masses were both militarised, and the threat of the USSR loomed large. This new power balance favoring the labor movement was the only reason they won their welfare states. As soon as the power balance shifted, western governments started dismantling the welfare states. In other words, welfare policies, and the distribution of income are an effective gauge of the level of democratic power in a country.

              The USSR, unlike the SocDems went well beyond mere welfare. Rents were capped to 5% of your income, and most people didn’t even pay that, as home ownership rates were well over 90%. Food was subsidized to such a degree that in many socialist countries, it severely distorted the economy (and was likely a contributing factor to their downfalls ironically). Transportation and many forms of entertainment were virtually free (soviet citizens had access to community spas, theaters, an opera house in basically every city, iirc). Income differentials in the socialist states were orders of magnitudes lower than in SocDem states.

              Now obviously, these policies aren’t “proof” of democracy, but are certainly a strong indicator. And my statements were never meant to prove anything really, as it was a joke.

              But that tie-in would clearly be hard to accept if you wanted to argue for USSR being democratic, as it was far from a stateless classless moneyless society.

              Ah, the timeless technique of using a different definition of a word that a community clearly does not use, purely to generate confusion.

              unless you tie the idea of democracy to the liberal-fascist “will of the people” concept. But that would imply very bad things about your views, friend.

              I don’t remember making any references to “the will of the people”, but even if I did, thinking that would make me a “liberal-fascist” (what I think you are implying) because of that borders on asinine.

              • hrosts@lemm.ee
                15·
                8 months ago

                A state only does welfare policies when it is compelled to by democratic forces.

                Correction: by the need to disarm and pacify the proletariat, when class rule becomes too threatened. German Empire is a good example. Nobody would dare to call Bismarck’s rule “democratic”

                And you’re still describing welfare. Most SocDems I know support things like this or similar ones, and food subsidies are done by many liberal governments, irrelevant of the democratic status.

                using a different definition of a word that a community clearly does not use

                I agree, MLs have long abandoned what communism was supposed to mean.

                don’t remember making any references to “the will of the people”

                I mean, your schpiel about welfare implying democracy is kinda it. You still haven’t made neither communist ties to mode of production, nor more liberal ties to the electoral structure. You’re only pushing the welfare angle.

                Monarchs wanting to keep the populace docile, like in modern Saudi Arabia or in the German Empire would often implement welfare, and it would be ridiculous to call that in any way a democracy. However fascists often define “democracy” as the ruler following the will of the people, which is shown through fulfilling certain needs of the population, like food, healthcare, housing. Your “welfare implies democracy” take runs parallel to that idea, and can be argued to be a slight repackaging of the reactionary concept.

                would make me a “liberal-fascist”

                That is not how it works. It is possible to believe fascist things while being a liberal and to believe liberal and fascist things while being a socialist. The point is not that you are that shitty thing, but that you should change your position from the wrong one to the right one.

                • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
                  1·
                  8 months ago

                  Correction: by the need to disarm and pacify the proletariat, when class rule becomes too threatened. German Empire is a good example. Nobody would dare to call Bismarck’s rule “democratic”

                  You have managed to miss both the point of the joke and my explanation of it. I was being sarcastic in my comment and not writing a thesis on democracy. The joke was never meant to accurately define democracy. As for my explanation, you have somehow missed the fact that I explicitly say that welfare is an indicator for the strength of democratic forces, and not “proof” that a country is a democracy.

                  I agree, MLs have long abandoned what communism was supposed to mean.

                  Are you being purposefully obtuse?

                  However fascists often define “democracy” as the ruler following the will of the people, which is shown through fulfilling certain needs of the population, like food, healthcare, housing

                  Oh, was the USSR under Stalin fascist then? Was it simply “placating” and “disarming” the working population? Or was it liberal or monarchist? Because that is the original topic I replied to. Nobody but the most dumbass of ultras can pretend that the USSR under Stalin was not socialist. Certainly did not achieve higher stage communism as it still had a large peasant class.

                  • hrosts@lemm.ee
                    1·
                    8 months ago

                    You have managed to miss both the point of the joke and my explanation of it

                    I know you were sarcastic in the original comment, which is why I asked you to make an actual point.

                    They key points of your response were:

                    A state only does welfare policies when it is compelled to by democratic forces.

                    The USSR [did a lot of welfare]

                    these policies … are certainly a strong indicator [of democracy]

                    The first point you’re wrong on, as I have explained.

                    The second point I agree on.

                    The third point you are again wrong on, as examples I’ve provided demonstrate.

                    Both proofs and indicators serve similar goals rhetorically, I don’t see the point of your distinction here. I also didn’t say “proof” when criticizing your point:

                    Your “welfare implies democracy” take

                    Now going further.

                    Oh, was the USSR under Stalin fascist then?

                    I have no idea what led you to think I’m saying this, stop being defensive. It did do some things that, if were done by a western liberal government, would’ve lead to accusations of fascism, but that is beside the point.

                    Was it simply “placating” and “disarming” the working population?

                    That is correct, however; both figuratively and literally.

                    Nobody but the most dumbass of ultras can pretend

                    Now you’re just posturing. Please stop.

            • carl_marks[use name]
              51·
              8 months ago

              if you wanted to argue for USSR being democratic, as it was far from a stateless classless moneyless society.

              When you don’t know the difference between communism and socialism