• Antiproton@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    The Soviet Union was, if not a traditional dictatorship, absolutely a totalitarian autocracy. Stalin was a brutal dictator and his successors were chosen by the communist party. Elections in the USSR were for show.

    Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people. The USSR’s implementation of communism was so bad, it’s become cliche.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people.

      People like you should be forced to live under conditions like Tsarist Russia.

    • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people”, said the romanovs.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Allow me to repeat myself:

      The Soviet Union wasn’t a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.

      Read Blackshirts and Reds.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yep. Democracy doesn’t mean “choose between parties,” it’s about the actual impact you can have on policy. More people in China feel that they have a voice in politics than people in the US, despite the US having 2 parties.

          • pcalau12i@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Choosing between parties is arguably less democratic because in many countries with such a system, like the USA, you basically just have corporations/corporate media choosing the candidates, so your “choice” is between corporate candidates, so corporations always win. There is no option to reject the nominee entirely, while in China’s system you can reject the nominee. you can just straight up veto candidates.

            Westerners often also look at the very end of the process and ignore everything leading up to it. They will say “there’s only one candidate on the ballot!” as proof it’s undemocratic (even though this happens all the time in the US too…). But this ignores the entire democratic process leading up to how the candidate gets on the ballot in the first place. In Cuba for example, candidates getting on the ballot is a two-year long process resulting from local elections and meetings with mass organizations, but they ignore this entire process and just focus on the final election at the very end.

          • ambidexterity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Regarding the impact you make, ppl you vote for can be undemocratically removed from the party by party leadership at any time and therefore must comply fully with the will of the party.

            Btw, Kalinin’s (the head of the state) wife was held hostage in prison camp by Stalin (party leader). I guess that says as much about great Soviet democracy.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              You can feel free to read the sources I listed, rather than posting unsourced anecdotes as “gotchas.” Further, the ability of the party to purge Nazis ended up being important.