Reflecting back on the breakup of the Soviet Union that happened 22 years ago next week, residents in seven out of 11 countries that were part of the union are more likely to believe its collapse harmed their countries than benefited them. Only Azerbaijanis, Kazakhstanis, and Turkmens are more likely to see benefit than harm from the breakup. Georgians are divided.
A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country’s economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country’s switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary’s integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.
The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.
Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an “illegitimate state.” In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.
Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday.
The majority of Russians polled in a 2016 study said they would prefer living under the old Soviet Union and would like to see the socialist system and the Soviet state restored.
The claims you have read in reddit comments are almost always made by Americans, whose brains are riddled with red scare brainworms and are completely devoid of any knowledge or understand of what the left thinks in Europe, because Americans do not have a left.
Let’s end on something a bit more scientific than polls of people’s feelings:
Companies literally still sell the products from east germany, despite it being claimed to be inferior in quality to western ones. Like Vita Cola is one of best-selling products in germany.
I cannot emphasize enough, that I am not against communism, or socialism. My initial comment was mostly against a blanket statement that Eastern Europe is where it’s at, because of capitalism.
Even I remember the communist times fondly, even though I didn’t live through it. I am working toward it myself, or at least the common win. Which just confusesed me further with all the fallout I got in this thread.
I also see our future along lines that implement the best of what we can from communism, but learns from the problems of the initial implementation.
So like how do we make sure to not have selfish assholes in places of power? Not live in fear because we have questions. And I am not saying this is ingrained in communism…just something people do.
I guess I’ll have to read up on my dialectic materialism.
Yes, yes, I understand. But isn’t there the phrase that the revolution eats its children?
Excuse me as it has probably been discussed into the ground, but I am worried about the same power struggles experienced during after 1917. People in power not trusting each other or wanting more power. Will it be just a continual revolution, or a refresh when someone malicious gets too close to the reigns? If we had most of the core literature back then, why did it turn authoritarian?
I don’t need answers to my question (unless you got em!), I just wanted to share my main gripe with power structures in general.
“Consumerism” isn’t an actual system. It’s just describing people consuming goods with a negative connotation. There’s nothing to critique or change about consumerism, there’s no way to attack it outside of personal blame games of saying “individuals needs to be less greedy” (idealism). Capitalism is an economic system, one well studied and implemented throughout the world. Something that controls our societies, something that could be changed via political will. You really have only stuck your toe in the water here and lecturing people who swim all day.
This would be like a medieval peasant saying “I don’t oppose Feudalism, I only oppose pilgrimage and the constant festivals”. Like ??? You are mistaking a coping tendency under certain conditions for the system setting the conditions itself.
One is an epoch spanning economic system, a thing unto itself, the other is just some small offshoot describing what some people do. Not a thing itself, just a description of personal tendencies as they arise from the conditions they exist within.
Also, Capitalism =/= Markets. Markets and trade existed before capitalism in feudal and pre-historic societies even. Markets existed under socialism as well. Please learn what capitalism is.
While I did enjoy your verbose writing, it kinda feels to be coming off a pedestal. I get that this place gets a lot of trolls, but just looking at the reactions I’m getting from a good faith comment (heck, maybe it wasn’t good faith… Maybe I should have asked) feels pretty harsh and looks super circlejerky.
Also, Capitalism =/= Markets
I guess my superfluous simile doesn’t hold water.
I don’t know if we are properly understanding each other, as I see consumerism as a push to buy happiness. If it’s just one of those things that’s inherent to capitalism, sry for wasting your time.
I’m glad you think I’m verbose, English is my second language
You and I have fundamentally different methods of thought. I’m trying to say it in ten different ways to convey my alien, to you, materialist outlook. You have been raised in an idealist Liberal world to be an idealist Liberal subject, you think naturally in idealist ways (concerned about things like “consumerism” which are not real things but second order ideas). I am more concerned with changing the base structure of society itself, and the ideas will follow.
This is the first major hurdle that Liberals will face when radicalizing and breaking out of their confined worldview. Liberals fundamentally believe that ideas form reality. That people can agree on something from an argument in the marketplace of ideas and everyone just changes.
I believe that reality forms ideas. That the underlying economic relationships that people are placed in are the base from which all justifications and rationalizations (ideology, ideas, culture, religion, etc) arise
Until we can come to terms on this fundamental underlying discrepancy between our world views there won’t be much progress. I can dabble in your world, because I was also raised partially in a Liberal idealist society - but I can also dabble in mine where you cannot follow. I know all of your Liberal precepts and notions, you know none of mine.
Again, I appreciate you talking about yourself and talking about the definitions at play. Where you’re losing me (and building some bad will) is whenever you write about what you know about me.
No questions asked, your knowledge here is vast and greatly outweighs mine. But you are alienating me. I guess it’s no skin off your back, but I always thought that I could discuss radical ideas like thought shaping matter and matter shaping thought without being shamed. Live and learn, I guess. Maybe it’s more my vice, that I didn’t propose my initial statement as a question.
I don’t want to accuse you of anything, just writing down what this type of communication brings up in me.
The point is that I “know” you because you hold the default ideology of your society, and I am intimately familiar with Liberalism in all its forms. It’s not a diss on you. It’s a statement of fact. Liberalism is the hegemonic system of belief you were raised in and what you have been espousing here.
How educated on Marxism are you? Have you read Lenin’s works? Have you read anything by Marx, even the complete Manifesto?
Brother capitalism ravaged eastern europe once they were “liberated” from “soviet occupation”?
Duh. Consumerism is a blight on humanity that will take decades to wash off.
But why use the quotation marks? Many countries had native communist movements, but there was definitely soviet aggression involved in some.
7 out of 11 countries believe the end of the USSR harmed their countries rather than benefited them
Hungary: 72% of Hungarians say they are worse off today economically than under communism
Romania: 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism
Germany: more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR
28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime
81% of Serbians believe they lived best in Yugoslavia
Majority of Russians
The claims you have read in reddit comments are almost always made by Americans, whose brains are riddled with red scare brainworms and are completely devoid of any knowledge or understand of what the left thinks in Europe, because Americans do not have a left.
Let’s end on something a bit more scientific than polls of people’s feelings:
Socialist countries objectively provide a better quality of life to their populations than capitalist countries when compared at an equal level of development
Companies literally still sell the products from east germany, despite it being claimed to be inferior in quality to western ones. Like Vita Cola is one of best-selling products in germany.
Hey, thank you for bringing the data.
I cannot emphasize enough, that I am not against communism, or socialism. My initial comment was mostly against a blanket statement that Eastern Europe is where it’s at, because of capitalism.
Even I remember the communist times fondly, even though I didn’t live through it. I am working toward it myself, or at least the common win. Which just confusesed me further with all the fallout I got in this thread.
I also see our future along lines that implement the best of what we can from communism, but learns from the problems of the initial implementation.
So like how do we make sure to not have selfish assholes in places of power? Not live in fear because we have questions. And I am not saying this is ingrained in communism…just something people do.
I guess I’ll have to read up on my dialectic materialism.
Thats what the revolution is for
Yes, yes, I understand. But isn’t there the phrase that the revolution eats its children?
Excuse me as it has probably been discussed into the ground, but I am worried about the same power struggles experienced during after 1917. People in power not trusting each other or wanting more power. Will it be just a continual revolution, or a refresh when someone malicious gets too close to the reigns? If we had most of the core literature back then, why did it turn authoritarian?
I don’t need answers to my question (unless you got em!), I just wanted to share my main gripe with power structures in general.
You should read this, “revolution eating its children” is mentioned there.
consumerism? do you mean capitalism? why do liberals always play these word games
No, my main beef is with consumerism. Capitalism props up consumerism. I don’t have a huge problem with a market, as long as it’s supervised.
“Consumerism” isn’t an actual system. It’s just describing people consuming goods with a negative connotation. There’s nothing to critique or change about consumerism, there’s no way to attack it outside of personal blame games of saying “individuals needs to be less greedy” (idealism). Capitalism is an economic system, one well studied and implemented throughout the world. Something that controls our societies, something that could be changed via political will. You really have only stuck your toe in the water here and lecturing people who swim all day.
This would be like a medieval peasant saying “I don’t oppose Feudalism, I only oppose pilgrimage and the constant festivals”. Like ??? You are mistaking a coping tendency under certain conditions for the system setting the conditions itself.
One is an epoch spanning economic system, a thing unto itself, the other is just some small offshoot describing what some people do. Not a thing itself, just a description of personal tendencies as they arise from the conditions they exist within.
Also, Capitalism =/= Markets. Markets and trade existed before capitalism in feudal and pre-historic societies even. Markets existed under socialism as well. Please learn what capitalism is.
While I did enjoy your verbose writing, it kinda feels to be coming off a pedestal. I get that this place gets a lot of trolls, but just looking at the reactions I’m getting from a good faith comment (heck, maybe it wasn’t good faith… Maybe I should have asked) feels pretty harsh and looks super circlejerky.
I guess my superfluous simile doesn’t hold water.
I don’t know if we are properly understanding each other, as I see consumerism as a push to buy happiness. If it’s just one of those things that’s inherent to capitalism, sry for wasting your time.
I’m glad you think I’m verbose, English is my second language
You and I have fundamentally different methods of thought. I’m trying to say it in ten different ways to convey my alien, to you, materialist outlook. You have been raised in an idealist Liberal world to be an idealist Liberal subject, you think naturally in idealist ways (concerned about things like “consumerism” which are not real things but second order ideas). I am more concerned with changing the base structure of society itself, and the ideas will follow.
This is the first major hurdle that Liberals will face when radicalizing and breaking out of their confined worldview. Liberals fundamentally believe that ideas form reality. That people can agree on something from an argument in the marketplace of ideas and everyone just changes.
I believe that reality forms ideas. That the underlying economic relationships that people are placed in are the base from which all justifications and rationalizations (ideology, ideas, culture, religion, etc) arise
Until we can come to terms on this fundamental underlying discrepancy between our world views there won’t be much progress. I can dabble in your world, because I was also raised partially in a Liberal idealist society - but I can also dabble in mine where you cannot follow. I know all of your Liberal precepts and notions, you know none of mine.
Again, I appreciate you talking about yourself and talking about the definitions at play. Where you’re losing me (and building some bad will) is whenever you write about what you know about me.
No questions asked, your knowledge here is vast and greatly outweighs mine. But you are alienating me. I guess it’s no skin off your back, but I always thought that I could discuss radical ideas like thought shaping matter and matter shaping thought without being shamed. Live and learn, I guess. Maybe it’s more my vice, that I didn’t propose my initial statement as a question.
I don’t want to accuse you of anything, just writing down what this type of communication brings up in me.
The point is that I “know” you because you hold the default ideology of your society, and I am intimately familiar with Liberalism in all its forms. It’s not a diss on you. It’s a statement of fact. Liberalism is the hegemonic system of belief you were raised in and what you have been espousing here.
How educated on Marxism are you? Have you read Lenin’s works? Have you read anything by Marx, even the complete Manifesto?