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

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

                Since you want to play that game let’s go back to the original argument

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

                Where is the evidence for this?

                • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You linked elections, you said people could voice idea and vote on them. Election is not voicing an idea.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You can read This Soviet World or Blackshirts and Reds, if you’d like. There have been numerous books on the subject. You can even check the Wikipedia page for Soviet Democracy, the bit from Pat Sloan is especially relevant.

                  I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship are no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organisation was called. by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet?

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

                    Anyone can write about how they could voice ideas and vote on them but where the proof of anyone actually voicing and idea and there being voting on it?