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.
@yogthos If you don’t know by USSR’s ruling class, then I question your claim of having grown up there, or at least think you were too young to understand the societal structure before it collapsed/you moved from there. While churches technically existed, worship was in the grey area and only tolerated if we’re talking about Orthodox Christians. If we talk about other religions, Islam or Judaism, then all bets are off.
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.
@yogthos I can’t believe the naivety of what I’m reading. USSR was a single party state. Do you seriously believe that the whole of society shared the goals and direction of the Communist party? If yes, then why did the county ultimately fail, why didn’t they succeed in creating the ultimate expression of Communist society?
The only naivete here is thinking that number of parties has anything to do with how well the government represents people. Yes, I seriously believe that the party represented the interests of the working majority. In fact, this isn’t some theoretical debate. We can look at how people feel now that they’ve got a test of capitalist freedom:
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.
@yogthos If you don’t know by USSR’s ruling class, then I question your claim of having grown up there, or at least think you were too young to understand the societal structure before it collapsed/you moved from there. While churches technically existed, worship was in the grey area and only tolerated if we’re talking about Orthodox Christians. If we talk about other religions, Islam or Judaism, then all bets are off.
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.
@yogthos I can’t believe the naivety of what I’m reading. USSR was a single party state. Do you seriously believe that the whole of society shared the goals and direction of the Communist party? If yes, then why did the county ultimately fail, why didn’t they succeed in creating the ultimate expression of Communist society?
The only naivete here is thinking that number of parties has anything to do with how well the government represents people. Yes, I seriously believe that the party represented the interests of the working majority. In fact, this isn’t some theoretical debate. We can look at how people feel now that they’ve got a test of capitalist freedom:
Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx
Now, go spread your bullshit somewhere else Peter.