Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Bratislavskaya]

Chile's one did. Allende was removed, Pinochet installed. Huge amounts of torture and gross human rights violations followed accompanied by strong economic growth and surprising domestic stability, especially when you consider it's neighbors were suffering from left-wing insurgencies (Peru), multiple military coups (Bolivia) or losing fruitless wars and suffering harsh economic hardship under a military government run by numpties (Argentina).

It doesn't justify what Pinochet did or make Pinochet a great leader, but Chile benefited immensely from the policies instituted under his regime. I'd say it went smoothly and be (loosely) called a success.

Chile's coup wasn't backed by the US.

According to many it was, and the post-coup government was 100% supported by the CIA.

[Constantinopolis]

Allende was removed, Pinochet installed. Huge amounts of torture and gross human rights violations followed accompanied by strong economic growth and surprising domestic stability... [...] I'd say it went smoothly and be (loosely) called a success.

So if you (loosely) call that a success...

...what do you have against Stalin? His record could be described with exactly the same words.

Fact: There is no argument in favour of Pinochet that cannot be used equally well in favour of Stalin. They both tortured and murdered lots of people (on the scale of their respective countries) but provided stability and economic growth. If that's ok when right-wing dictators do it, then it's ok when left-wing dictators do it, too.

For the record, I oppose it in both cases, although I'm willing to somewhat tolerate it when left-wing dictators do it, because oppressing the rich is inherently less bad than oppressing the poor. I take an unabashedly class-based perspective. Loving the poor and hating the rich is part of my ideology, so I don't treat dictators who oppress one group the same as those who oppress the other group. But for someone who claims not to take a class-based perspective, what's your excuse for preferring one dictator over the other?

[Bears Armed]

Fact: There is no argument in favour of Pinochet that cannot be used equally well in favour of Stalin.

I don't recall Stalin eventually letting genuine multi-party democracy resume in his country...

[Constantinopolis]

Fact: There is no argument in favour of Pinochet that cannot be used equally well in favour of Stalin.

I don't recall Stalin eventually letting genuine multi-party democracy resume in his country...

He didn't let it. There was a mass movement demanding multi-party democracy and protesting in the streets, in spite of Pinochet's attempts to suppress it.

Pinochet was forced to step down. He didn't "let" anything happen.

[Novus America]

Allende was removed, Pinochet installed. Huge amounts of torture and gross human rights violations followed accompanied by strong economic growth and surprising domestic stability... [...] I'd say it went smoothly and be (loosely) called a success.

So if you (loosely) call that a success...

...what do you have against Stalin? His record could be described with exactly the same words.

Fact: There is no argument in favour of Pinochet that cannot be used equally well in favour of Stalin. They both tortured and murdered lots of people (on the scale of their respective countries) but provided stability and economic growth. If that's ok when right-wing dictators do it, then it's ok when left-wing dictators do it, too.

For the record, I oppose it in both cases, although I'm willing to somewhat tolerate it when left-wing dictators do it, because oppressing the rich is inherently less bad than oppressing the poor. I take an unabashedly class-based perspective. Loving the poor and hating the rich is part of my ideology, so I don't treat dictators who oppress one group the same as those who oppress the other group. But for someone who claims not to take a class-based perspective, what's your excuse for preferring one dictator over the other?

Stalin oppressed the poor, left-wing dictators oppress the poor. Class consciousnesses is a myth. When one group of poor overthrow the rich, they become the rich and oppress the poor. The poor are just as human, fallible and self serving as the rich.

[Teemant]

So if you (loosely) call that a success...

...what do you have against Stalin? His record could be described with exactly the same words.

Fact: There is no argument in favour of Pinochet that cannot be used equally well in favour of Stalin. They both tortured and murdered lots of people (on the scale of their respective countries) but provided stability and economic growth. If that's ok when right-wing dictators do it, then it's ok when left-wing dictators do it, too.

For the record, I oppose it in both cases, although I'm willing to somewhat tolerate it when left-wing dictators do it, because oppressing the rich is inherently less bad than oppressing the poor. I take an unabashedly class-based perspective. Loving the poor and hating the rich is part of my ideology, so I don't treat dictators who oppress one group the same as those who oppress the other group. But for someone who claims not to take a class-based perspective, what's your excuse for preferring one dictator over the other?

Stalin oppressed the poor, left-wing dictators oppress the poor. Class consciousnesses is a myth. When one group of poor overthrow the rich, they become the rich and oppress the poor. The poor are just as human, fallible and self serving as the rich.

True. In Soviet Union leaders had villas near black sea, western home equipment (TVs, refrigerators etc) and could travel around the world. Meanwhile ordinary person had to be 10 years in line to get a permit to buy a bad Lada car eventhough only few could still afford it.

[Constantinopolis]

Stalin oppressed the poor, left-wing dictators oppress the poor. Class consciousnesses is a myth. When one group of poor overthrow the rich, they become the rich and oppress the poor. The poor are just as human, fallible and self serving as the rich.

True. In Soviet Union leaders had villas near black sea, western home equipment (TVs, refrigerators etc) and could travel around the world. Meanwhile ordinary person had to be 10 years in line to get a permit to buy a bad Lada car eventhough only few could still afford it.

Of course there was a difference between rich and poor in the Soviet Union, too. But it was nothing compared to the difference between rich and poor in capitalist countries. Villas near the Black Sea and cutting-edge home equipment? HA! Capitalist billionaires can buy 10 of those for their kids as a birthday present.

In any case, whatever you think about Soviet leaders in general or Stalin in particular, the main point I was making is that there is no justification for calling Pinochet a "success (for the most part)" while you oppose Stalin. If torture and murder for the sake of stability and economic growth are acceptable things for one national leader to do, then they are acceptable for other national leaders with other ideologies too.

That is to say, there is no justification for tolerating Pinochet and opposing Stalin IF you supposedly care about the oppression of all people equally. But I do not really believe that right-wingers (or liberals for that matter) care about the oppression of all people equally. They care about the wealthy, the educated and the privileged, and not so much about the working class.

[United commonwealth of ayrshire]

Stalin oppressed the poor, left-wing dictators oppress the poor. Class consciousnesses is a myth. When one group of poor overthrow the rich, they become the rich and oppress the poor. The poor are just as human, fallible and self serving as the rich.

True. In Soviet Union leaders had villas near black sea, western home equipment (TVs, refrigerators etc) and could travel around the world. Meanwhile ordinary person had to be 10 years in line to get a permit to buy a bad Lada car eventhough only few could still afford it.

But if you're a fan of equality then why are you seemingly capitalist? In Russia, for instance, inequality has skyrocketed since the fall of the USSR, no matter how privileged certain members of the political classes were back then.

[Constantinopolis]

True. In Soviet Union leaders had villas near black sea, western home equipment (TVs, refrigerators etc) and could travel around the world. Meanwhile ordinary person had to be 10 years in line to get a permit to buy a bad Lada car eventhough only few could still afford it.

But if you're a fan of equality then why are you seemingly capitalist? In Russia, for instance, inequality has skyrocketed since the fall of the USSR, no matter how privileged certain members of the political classes were back then.

Well, obviously, inequality is only wrong when commies do it. *nod*

[United commonwealth of ayrshire]

But if you're a fan of equality then why are you seemingly capitalist? In Russia, for instance, inequality has skyrocketed since the fall of the USSR, no matter how privileged certain members of the political classes were back then.

Well, obviously, inequality is only wrong when commies do it. *nod*

Don't let facts get in the way of a capitalist argument

[Teemant]

True. In Soviet Union leaders had villas near black sea, western home equipment (TVs, refrigerators etc) and could travel around the world. Meanwhile ordinary person had to be 10 years in line to get a permit to buy a bad Lada car eventhough only few could still afford it.

But if you're a fan of equality then why are you seemingly capitalist? In Russia, for instance, inequality has skyrocketed since the fall of the USSR, no matter how privileged certain members of the political classes were back then.

I don't think everyone must have equal amount of money. I think people should have equal opportunities and that's what people in Soviet Union didn't have. No matter how hard ordinary person worked he could never buy a western TV not to mention house near black sea meanwhile leaders got these for free (didn't even spend their own money). Hard working people earned as much as people who put almost no effort into their jobs because salaries were fixed 5 years front.
Soviet Union was absolutely the worst place for a hardworking person to live in.

[Teemant]

True. In Soviet Union leaders had villas near black sea, western home equipment (TVs, refrigerators etc) and could travel around the world. Meanwhile ordinary person had to be 10 years in line to get a permit to buy a bad Lada car eventhough only few could still afford it.

Of course there was a difference between rich and poor in the Soviet Union, too. But it was nothing compared to the difference between rich and poor in capitalist countries. Villas near the Black Sea and cutting-edge home equipment? HA! Capitalist billionaires can buy 10 of those for their kids as a birthday present.

In any case, whatever you think about Soviet leaders in general or Stalin in particular, the main point I was making is that there is no justification for calling Pinochet a "success (for the most part)" while you oppose Stalin. If torture and murder for the sake of stability and economic growth are acceptable things for one national leader to do, then they are acceptable for other national leaders with other ideologies too.

That is to say, there is no justification for tolerating Pinochet and opposing Stalin IF you supposedly care about the oppression of all people equally. But I do not really believe that right-wingers (or liberals for that matter) care about the oppression of all people equally. They care about the wealthy, the educated and the privileged, and not so much about the working class.

Soviet Leaders had more than 1 villa. One near black sea, one near Moscow, nice apartment in Moscow and list goes on. They could have had as many as they wanted because they had unlimited wealth. Unlimited wealth > billionaire (most of the billionaires actually earn their money).

[United Marxist Nations]

But if you're a fan of equality then why are you seemingly capitalist? In Russia, for instance, inequality has skyrocketed since the fall of the USSR, no matter how privileged certain members of the political classes were back then.

I don't think everyone must have equal amount of money. I think people should have equal opportunities and that's what people in Soviet Union didn't have. No matter how hard ordinary person worked he could never buy a western TV not to mention house near black sea meanwhile leaders got these for free (not even their own money). Hard working people earned as much as people who put almost no effort into their jobs because salaries were fixed 5 years front.
Soviet Union was absolutely the worst place for a hardworking person to live in.

It's absolutely false that every worker made the same amount in the USSR. The whole point of things like the Stakhanovite movement was to get people to work harder by incentivizing it. Also, Black Sea vacations were common in the USSR, as were televisions. Television was impractical until the USSR launched a bunch of satellites for it though due to the sheer size of the country (transmitters were inadequate).

[Teemant]

I don't think everyone must have equal amount of money. I think people should have equal opportunities and that's what people in Soviet Union didn't have. No matter how hard ordinary person worked he could never buy a western TV not to mention house near black sea meanwhile leaders got these for free (not even their own money). Hard working people earned as much as people who put almost no effort into their jobs because salaries were fixed 5 years front.
Soviet Union was absolutely the worst place for a hardworking person to live in.

It's absolutely false that every worker made the same amount in the USSR. The whole point of things like the Stakhanovite movement was to get people to work harder by incentivizing it. Also, Black Sea vacations were common in the USSR, as were televisions. Television was impractical until the USSR launched a bunch of satellites for it though due to the sheer size of the country (transmitters were inadequate).

Of course not everyone made same amount of money but I meant people in same work place (who had same job) made same amount of money regardless how much effort they put into their work. One could rest all day and pretend to work and still earn as much as others - that's how thing were.

[Constantinopolis]

But if you're a fan of equality then why are you seemingly capitalist? In Russia, for instance, inequality has skyrocketed since the fall of the USSR, no matter how privileged certain members of the political classes were back then.

I don't think everyone must have equal amount of money. I think people should have equal opportunities and that's what people in Soviet Union didn't have. No matter how hard ordinary person worked he could never buy a western TV not to mention house near black sea meanwhile leaders got these for free (didn't even spend their own money). Hard working people earned as much as people who put almost no effort into their jobs because salaries were fixed 5 years front.
Soviet Union was absolutely the worst place for a hardworking person to live in.

No matter how hard a truck driver or factory worker or supermarket employee works under capitalism, (s)he will never be able to buy a house near the Black Sea (or any other sea) either.

How do you get rich under capitalism? By working hard at anything you choose to do? No. You can't just pick whatever job you do best and work hard at that. The hardest-working coal miner in the capitalist world is still poor. You can't get rich that way. You have to pick CERTAIN types of careers (usually in the corporate world), and climb your way up the ladder until you are rich. And, of course, many try, but few succeed.

So why are you complaining about the Soviet system? It was similar in this respect: if you wanted to eventually rise to a privileged position, you could join the Communist Party and climb the bureaucratic ladder until you got to the top. Not so different from climbing the corporate ladder under capitalism.

[Imperial City-States]

It's interesting how this thread transitions from Ukraine, to Post Soviet country's being better/worse, to Your Pro Soviet fanboys arguing with Pro West fanboys.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's absolutely false that every worker made the same amount in the USSR. The whole point of things like the Stakhanovite movement was to get people to work harder by incentivizing it. Also, Black Sea vacations were common in the USSR, as were televisions. Television was impractical until the USSR launched a bunch of satellites for it though due to the sheer size of the country (transmitters were inadequate).

Of course not everyone made same amount of money but I meant people in same work place (who had same job) made same amount of money regardless how much effort they put into their work. One could rest all day and pretend to work and still earn as much as others - that's how thing were.

Again, things like the Stakhanovite movement disprove that. Not to mention that salaries were the minority of wages.

[Teemant]

Of course not everyone made same amount of money but I meant people in same work place (who had same job) made same amount of money regardless how much effort they put into their work. One could rest all day and pretend to work and still earn as much as others - that's how thing were.

Again, things like the Stakhanovite movement disprove that. Not to mention that salaries were the minority of wages.

You know that it was used for propaganda right?

[Korva]

Again, things like the Stakhanovite movement disprove that. Not to mention that salaries were the minority of wages.

You know that it was used for propaganda right?

American teens gotta believe something.

Zakharchenko claims he will conquer Mariupol and that the DPR considers itself a part of the Soviet Union.

[United commonwealth of ayrshire]

I don't think everyone must have equal amount of money.

Good cos neither do communists.

[United Marxist Nations]

Again, things like the Stakhanovite movement disprove that. Not to mention that salaries were the minority of wages.

You know that it was used for propaganda right?

Many things used for propaganda have a basis in reality.

[United Marxist Nations]

You know that it was used for propaganda right?

American teens gotta believe something.

Zakharchenko claims he will conquer Mariupol and that the DPR considers itself a part of the Soviet Union.

And edgy law students have to resort to attributing all disagreement to immaturity.

[Bratislavskaya]

Again, things like the Stakhanovite movement disprove that. Not to mention that salaries were the minority of wages.

You know that it was used for propaganda right?

What? Encouraging people to work hard is propaganda?

[Novus America]

I don't think everyone must have equal amount of money. I think people should have equal opportunities and that's what people in Soviet Union didn't have. No matter how hard ordinary person worked he could never buy a western TV not to mention house near black sea meanwhile leaders got these for free (didn't even spend their own money). Hard working people earned as much as people who put almost no effort into their jobs because salaries were fixed 5 years front.
Soviet Union was absolutely the worst place for a hardworking person to live in.

No matter how hard a truck driver or factory worker or supermarket employee works under capitalism, (s)he will never be able to buy a house near the Black Sea (or any other sea) either.

How do you get rich under capitalism? By working hard at anything you choose to do? No. You can't just pick whatever job you do best and work hard at that. The hardest-working coal miner in the capitalist world is still poor. You can't get rich that way. You have to pick CERTAIN types of careers (usually in the corporate world), and climb your way up the ladder until you are rich. And, of course, many try, but few succeed.

So why are you complaining about the Soviet system? It was similar in this respect: if you wanted to eventually rise to a privileged position, you could join the Communist Party and climb the bureaucratic ladder until you got to the top. Not so different from climbing the corporate ladder under capitalism.

You have made several errors. Actually most people who are really rich usually get there through innovation rather than the corporate ladder.
Corporations are made. Steve Jobs was not rich to begin, he was working building computers in his garage with some friends. He did not climb the corporate ladder, he made his own corporation. This is how you get really rich, create a novel product or service.

You say truck drivers cannot get rich no matter how hard they work? Blatantly false. Actually the average American heavy truck driver makes nearly 50k a year. And you can easily make a lot more. I worked as a truck driver in the year between when I got off active duty and when I could start law school. I go paid over $1000 a WEEK, with no experience. Many truck drivers make over 100k a year. That is enough for a house on the sea in many places in the US.

You can get rich as a truck driver. Nearly half of American truck drivers own their own trucks, they are called "owner-operators" in the industry.
So they are both workers and capitalists, at the same time! Yes. Almost half. Messes up that whole class myth. They create a Limited Liability Company, (LLC) for their own business (their truck).
You can save enough money driving a truck to buy one. You can get a good heavy truck for 50k, about your salary, but credit is widely available, in fact many companies will loan you the money, if you contract to work with them as a contractor for a few years. Or you can lease-to-own from many companies.

Once you by your own truck, you save up enough to buy a second truck. And a third, and so on. I know of a guy who did this, he owned the company I worked for. He started out as a poor rural truck driver. Now he owns more the 200 trucks. And he is a multi-millionaire.

Oh and my grandfather worked as a construction worker and mechanic. He owns a small house by the sea in Florida. You do not have to be rich to have a house by the sea.

Of course you can get rich other ways. But your understanding of mostly capitalist systems is lacking.
Their is no such thing as a true "capitalist" state, which is an unworkable ideal, nearly every country today has a mixed system of state and private ownership. Mixed systems can work. Of course within that their are infinite permutations that can be tried, some better than others. This internet we are using? Would not exist except for a mixed economic system.

Your problem is you are too black and white. The world is not like that. Their is no clear lines, no absolutes. It is never as simple as rich v. poor, capitalist v. socialist, worker v. owner. Every thing is a spectrum, not clear categories.

Of course this is common in the post-Soviet states. Take Ukraine for example. Most of the Ukrainian industry is state owned. Ukraine has never been "capitalist" or a functioning democracy. It is instead caught in a weird twilight zone, as a weird hybrid of the Soviet system with some democratic and capitalists aspects. The same is the case of most states who broke free of the Soviets. The Baltics and Poland (a Soviet satellite and not an actual part of the USSR) fully modernized, and are doing very well. Others like Ukraine never modernized, and only adopted superficial trappings of a modern capitalist democracy and retained much of the Soviet system and politicians, and things are horrible there. In countries like the central Asian republics they are ruled by the same elites from the Soviet days.

Many people of many post Soviet states are dissatisfied with capitalism and democracy, despite the fact that most post-Soviet states are neither democratic, nor particularly capitalist and never have been as much or most industry remains state-owned. Russia was never a democracy either, Yeltsin's regime was hardly democratic, and not properly capitalist either, it was a crony based oligarchy where most got rich through crime and connections, not business acumen, and many elections rigged.

So before they say a modern "capitalist" (actually mixed) democracy is bad they should try it first. Too bad most never did.
They have a quasi-Soviet kleptocracy instead. Which I think we can all agree is not the way to go.

[United Marxist Nations]

No matter how hard a truck driver or factory worker or supermarket employee works under capitalism, (s)he will never be able to buy a house near the Black Sea (or any other sea) either.

How do you get rich under capitalism? By working hard at anything you choose to do? No. You can't just pick whatever job you do best and work hard at that. The hardest-working coal miner in the capitalist world is still poor. You can't get rich that way. You have to pick CERTAIN types of careers (usually in the corporate world), and climb your way up the ladder until you are rich. And, of course, many try, but few succeed.

So why are you complaining about the Soviet system? It was similar in this respect: if you wanted to eventually rise to a privileged position, you could join the Communist Party and climb the bureaucratic ladder until you got to the top. Not so different from climbing the corporate ladder under capitalism.

You have made several errors. Actually most people who are really rich usually get there through innovation rather than the corporate ladder.
Corporations are made. Steve Jobs was not rich to begin, he was working building computers in his garage with some friends. He did not climb the corporate ladder, he made his own corporation. This is how you get really rich, create a novel product or service.

You say truck drivers cannot get rich no matter how hard they work? Blatantly false. Actually the average American heavy truck driver makes nearly 50k a year. And you can easily make a lot more. I worked as a truck driver in the year between when I got off active duty and when I could start law school. I go paid over $1000 a WEEK, with no experience. Many truck drivers make over 100k a year. That is enough for a house on the sea in many places in the US.

You can get rich as a truck driver. Nearly half of American truck drivers own their own trucks, they are called "owner-operators" in the industry.
So they are both workers and capitalists, at the same time! Yes. Almost half. Messes up that whole class myth. They create a Limited Liability Company, (LLC) for their own business (their truck).
You can save enough money driving a truck to buy one. You can get a good heavy truck for 50k, about your salary, but credit is widely available, in fact many companies will loan you the money, if you contract to work with them as a contractor for a few years. Or you can lease-to-own from many companies.

Once you by your own truck, you save up enough to buy a second truck. And a third, and so on. I know of a guy who did this, he owned the company I worked for. He started out as a poor rural truck driver. Now he owns more the 200 trucks. And he is a multi-millionaire.

Oh and my grandfather worked as a construction worker and mechanic. He owns a small house by the sea in Florida. You do not have to be rich to have a house by the sea.

Of course you can get rich other ways. But your understanding of mostly capitalist systems is lacking.
Their is no such thing as a true "capitalist" state, which is an unworkable ideal, nearly every country today has a mixed system of state and private ownership. Mixed systems can work. Of course within that their are infinite permutations that can be tried, some better than others. This internet we are using? Would not exist except for a mixed economic system.

Your problem is you are too black and white. The world is not like that. Their is no clear lines, no absolutes. It is never as simple as rich v. poor, capitalist v. socialist, worker v. owner. Every thing is a spectrum, not clear categories.

Of course this is common in the post-Soviet states. Take Ukraine for example. Most of the Ukrainian industry is state owned. Ukraine has never been "capitalist" or a functioning democracy. It is instead caught in a weird twilight zone, as a weird hybrid of the Soviet system with some democratic and capitalists aspects. The same is the case of most states who broke free of the Soviets. The Baltics and Poland (a Soviet satellite and not an actual part of the USSR) fully modernized, and are doing very well. Others like Ukraine never modernized, and only adopted superficial trappings of a modern capitalist democracy and retained much of the Soviet system and politicians, and things are horrible there. In countries like the central Asian republics they are ruled by the same elites from the Soviet days.

Many people of many post Soviet states are dissatisfied with capitalism and democracy, despite the fact that most post-Soviet states are neither democratic, nor particularly capitalist and never have been as much or most industry remains state-owned. Russia was never a democracy either, Yeltsin's regime was hardly democratic, and not properly capitalist either, it was a crony based oligarchy where most got rich through crime and connections, not business acumen, and many elections rigged.

So before they say a modern "capitalist" (actually mixed) democracy is bad they should try it first. Too bad most never did.
They have a quasi-Soviet kleptocracy instead. Which I think we can all agree is not the way to go.

I'm now going to ask for a source that the majority of the Ukrainian economy is state-run, and for a list or percentage of current oligarchs and statesmen that were actually "elites". Not Party members, the Party had 19 million members (10% of the Soviet population) of whom over half were industrial workers and collective farmers; I mean actual elites, like the Gosplan, Central Committee, the Supreme Soviet, and the like.