• HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    That’s what dissent is.

    Nothing you said disputes it being a dictatorship. The people could not choose their leaders, there were no limits on the power of their leaders, er go it was a dictatorship. None of your “pros” matter. And that’s before we get into the lack of freedom of speech and press and total absence of transparency, meaning that I have no reason to trust those supposed accomplishments.

    • Kras Mazov@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      You are being presented with sources for the claims disproving you, but your anticommunism is clearly more important to you than engaging with actual rvidence.

      No investigation, no right to speak.

        • davel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Declassified CIA report:

          Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

          A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, now that US & Soviet archives have been released, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, like Domenico Losurdo and Grover Furr.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 hours ago

      No, that isn’t what dissent is, it was a fundamental liberalization of the economy that favored private property over public.

      Secondly, they absolutely chose their leaders.

      Finally, you say life expectancy, literacy rates, and worker rights “don’t matter?” That strong, sustained economic growth doesn’t matter? You must be trolling.

      As for distrusting the sources, you can look into them yourselves, they are well-respected.

      • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        So, you’re denying that glasnost allowed for political dissent?

        Second, no they didn’t.

        Finally, it does not matter because we were debating whether or not the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, which the literacy rate has nothing to do with.

        Well-respected by Tankies, not by actual historians.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Glasnost allowed for liberalism to expand as an ideology, sure, alongside other reforms that weakened the economy and erased its foundations. You can’t cherry-pick the reforms to make it seem like the system worked poorly and only was dissolved because the “people had a choice.” In fact, most post-Soviet citizens regret the fall of Socialism and prefer it over Capitalism.

          Read Soviet Democracy.

          We were debating a great many things, one of which being the economy and the well-being of the people, because that helps explain why it was democratic.

          Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is quite literally used as a reference on the Wikipedia article for Soviet Democracy. You are incapable of being honest or looking at facts that disprove you because you care more about appearing morally righteous than being correct.

          • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            “Expand as an ideology” is a strange way to say, “they weren’t shot for disagreeing with the Party.”

            The reforms didn’t weaken the economy. The economy was weak, therefore there were reforms. And it’s not cherrypicking, the Soviet system worked poorly, objectively.

            Nostalgia doesn’t prove anything. What they feel now has nothing to do with what the people felt at the time.

            Read Robert Conquest.

            No, you denied that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. The GDP does not effect that.

            And books describing the Soviet Union as a totalitarian dictatorship are used as reference. Wikipedia is providing a variety of opinions of the Soviet government. It’s not declaring Pat Sloan the sole source of truth on the question of human rights in the Soviet Union.

            You clearly don’t care about being righteous or correct.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Liberals usually weren’t shot even pre-Glasnost unless they were terrorist cells, like the White Army or Nazi sympathizers.

              The reforms did weaken the economy. This is factual. The Soviet Union was one of the fastest growing and most impressive economies of the 20th century, this slowed with reforms.

              Read Robert Conquest? Seriously? The crank that made wild estimates before the opening of the Soviet Archives disproved him, whose coworkers denounced their own work with him on the Black Book of Communism, which included Nazis killed by the Soviets in the "death toll of Communism?* That’s your trump card, a long-debunked anticommunist myth from the Red Scare no historian, even anticommunist historians, supports these days? The Black Book has long been debunked as false.

              It didn’t declare Pat Sloan the only source of truth, but included it as a respected resource. It isn’t only Communists that reference Pat Sloans works, but liberals as well.

              Considering you unironically recommend propagandist Robert Conquest as a source that even liberals disagree with, you’re only proving me right.

              • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Right. Beria was well known for his trigger discipline.

                It wasn’t that impressive for the people living there. Otherwise they wouldn’t have rejected it.

                Debunked, according to a genocide denying Russian propaganda asset.

                To portray the opinion of Stalinists. Which they contrast with actual data and the opinions of actual historians.

                How about you cite some of those liberals, instead of a tankie rag?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  You have no data, lmao. You just make assertions.

                  The people of the USSR voted to dissolve it after liberal reforms had slowed the economy, and political instability in the government had eroded faith in the system. Most people regret that choice and wish it retained.

                  Here’s yet another debunk of the Black Book. Every time you repeat this conspiracy theory nonsense that was debunked without a shadow of a doubt after the anticommunists opened the Soviet Archives and revealed the real figures that were far below the numbers Conquest pulled out of his ass, you prove me correct.

                  Seriously, you have nothing other than a propagandist and you double down.