▲ 341 ▼ So many people wants us dead because we wants a better world for everyone (lemmy.ml) submitted 11 months ago by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 126 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -4 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -3 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship. If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people. However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant. A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of "benevolent dictators" from 1917 to 1991, it's outrageous making such claims. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -3 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship. If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people. However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant. A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of "benevolent dictators" from 1917 to 1991, it's outrageous making such claims. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -3 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship. If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people. However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant. A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of "benevolent dictators" from 1917 to 1991, it's outrageous making such claims. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship. If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people. However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant. A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of "benevolent dictators" from 1917 to 1991, it's outrageous making such claims. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship. If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people. However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant. A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of "benevolent dictators" from 1917 to 1991, it's outrageous making such claims. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship. If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people. However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant. A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of "benevolent dictators" from 1917 to 1991, it's outrageous making such claims. permalink fedilink source parent