It’s probably really important to highlight that the USSR was a communist state and communism relies on socialist policy to operate. You never mentioned communism once.
It wasn’t the social policies, such as provision of housing and education, that were the issues, it was the communist application of oppressive law.
The distinction is important because the word ‘socialism’ is wrongly feared in some western societies because it is taken as communism. So, any time a politician wants to introduce a socialist policy such as government paid healthcare, they’re marked as an evil socialist.
Personally, I don’t think the concept of communism itself was at fault. Rather, I believe it is two elements:
1: The wrong people were the leadership. They set the tone for everything that happens, creating the precedents and longterm establishment of the government.
2: A lack of consistent rules to distribute power among individuals in a relatively fair manner, that allows them to keep a modest amount of power. Things like wealth, gun ownership, the ability to unionize, freedom of speech and association, education, voting rights, and so on. While the USA’s Constitution is flawed, it did a decent job considering that we were a nation that initially only occupied the eastern seaboard of a continent, with a relatively small population.
The problems we see today come from distance, population size, technology, inequality, and our elites not being beholden to the nation’s interests. Billionaire creatures like Elon, Trump, Thiel, and so forth, can simply hop on a plane and leave for distant lands. They wouldn’t lose enough wealth if they had to jump ship from the vessel that they crashed into the rocks, free from threats to their life. Ordinary people like you and me would be left holding a bag of shit.
What I argue, is that Soviet Russia’s creation was too flawed to allow communism to be healthy, rather than communism itself being bad. They could have used capitalism, and the results wouldn’t have been any different. The big reason communism got a bad rap, is that it presented a seed of ‘what could be’ that threatened established interests. Part of that is from socialism threatening globalist capitalism, but also because Russia is dangerous to its neighbors. The other powers, regardless of size, had incentive to poke a stick into the wheels of their rivals.
Communism was just an excellent scapegoat for propaganda, because it was a newfangled concept. People are creatures of feeling, and are disturbed by things they haven’t seen before. Be it being trans, black, or socialist, a boogeyman can be manufactured out of the unfamiliar.
Well, I did say socialist state, not social policies. I think (assume) the differences are pretty clear. EU have good social policies as an example, but definitely are not socialist states. Extremity versus balance.
You might assume it, but you’ve seen the damage first hand painting socialism in a bad light because of its necessary attachment to communism has done. Others don’t make the same assumption you do, they view socialism as communism, because people such as yourself make that statement.
Communism is seriously flawed. Socialism, the economic arm it and other governments use, is only flawed if it’s used as part of a flawed system. Fascism is also dependent on some socialist policy but that doesn’t make socialism bad.
There actually isn’t really a socialist state; socialism is the economics those states rely on. They’re either communist, fascist or some other form of dictatorial government. Several European countries apply socialism quite strongly in their economics and we don’t need to discuss how they’re doing.
It’s probably really important to highlight that the USSR was a communist state and communism relies on socialist policy to operate. You never mentioned communism once.
It wasn’t the social policies, such as provision of housing and education, that were the issues, it was the communist application of oppressive law.
The distinction is important because the word ‘socialism’ is wrongly feared in some western societies because it is taken as communism. So, any time a politician wants to introduce a socialist policy such as government paid healthcare, they’re marked as an evil socialist.
Personally, I don’t think the concept of communism itself was at fault. Rather, I believe it is two elements:
1: The wrong people were the leadership. They set the tone for everything that happens, creating the precedents and longterm establishment of the government.
2: A lack of consistent rules to distribute power among individuals in a relatively fair manner, that allows them to keep a modest amount of power. Things like wealth, gun ownership, the ability to unionize, freedom of speech and association, education, voting rights, and so on. While the USA’s Constitution is flawed, it did a decent job considering that we were a nation that initially only occupied the eastern seaboard of a continent, with a relatively small population.
The problems we see today come from distance, population size, technology, inequality, and our elites not being beholden to the nation’s interests. Billionaire creatures like Elon, Trump, Thiel, and so forth, can simply hop on a plane and leave for distant lands. They wouldn’t lose enough wealth if they had to jump ship from the vessel that they crashed into the rocks, free from threats to their life. Ordinary people like you and me would be left holding a bag of shit.
What I argue, is that Soviet Russia’s creation was too flawed to allow communism to be healthy, rather than communism itself being bad. They could have used capitalism, and the results wouldn’t have been any different. The big reason communism got a bad rap, is that it presented a seed of ‘what could be’ that threatened established interests. Part of that is from socialism threatening globalist capitalism, but also because Russia is dangerous to its neighbors. The other powers, regardless of size, had incentive to poke a stick into the wheels of their rivals.
Communism was just an excellent scapegoat for propaganda, because it was a newfangled concept. People are creatures of feeling, and are disturbed by things they haven’t seen before. Be it being trans, black, or socialist, a boogeyman can be manufactured out of the unfamiliar.
Communism is when you’re oppressive for no reason at all.
Well, I did say socialist state, not social policies. I think (assume) the differences are pretty clear. EU have good social policies as an example, but definitely are not socialist states. Extremity versus balance.
You might assume it, but you’ve seen the damage first hand painting socialism in a bad light because of its necessary attachment to communism has done. Others don’t make the same assumption you do, they view socialism as communism, because people such as yourself make that statement.
Communism is seriously flawed. Socialism, the economic arm it and other governments use, is only flawed if it’s used as part of a flawed system. Fascism is also dependent on some socialist policy but that doesn’t make socialism bad.
There actually isn’t really a socialist state; socialism is the economics those states rely on. They’re either communist, fascist or some other form of dictatorial government. Several European countries apply socialism quite strongly in their economics and we don’t need to discuss how they’re doing.
The distinction is important.