• balsoft@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    37 minutes ago

    I agree with your overall point, still I think there needs to be some context.

    Here is the graph for USSR’s prison population (I could only find it in russian on yandex, because search engines are so fucked up nowadays):

    USSR really did have a relatively high imprisonment rate throughout its existence, and I think its punishment-focused penitentiary system was one of its worst sides. I’m glad that other socialist states are improving theirs, and I hope one day they can reach a point where prisons in their current form would no longer be necessary.

    As an aside, I find it really interesting that there was a simultaneous increase in prison population in both USSR and the US in the 80s:

    While in the US it was mainly caused by “law and order” politics popularized after the revolutionary movements of the 70s, combined with privatization of prison labor, I couldn’t find any well-sourced explanations for why it happened in USSR.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Authoritarianism is a meaningless term used by edgy children whose brains haven’t fully developed yet. The reality is that all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.

      Every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.

      What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.

      • drolex@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 minutes ago

        Authoritarianism is a meaningless term used by edgy children whose brains haven’t fully developed yet

        You tend to lose a bit of credibility when you start your argument with this kind of sentences. After that you would need to prove that your reasoning is at least as qualitative, as, say, Hannah Arendt’s work, and unfortunately it is far off the mark.

      • sgnl@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        If you don’t like the word authoritarian why did you use it? And why did you get defensive when someone agreed with your image.

        Even sarcastically I don’t see what you goal here was. To say the us and the soviet union are similarly inhumane? Or the us is slightly worse?

        Ok, and?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          56 minutes ago

          I was being sarcastic and poking fun at people using it. Congrats on taking the bait. What the picture says is that the US which libs championed as a ‘free and enlightened society’ in the 90s was incarcerating more people than USSR did during Stalin years. Rate of incarceration in USSR dropped significantly after that while it remains as high as ever in the US today.

          • sgnl@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            49 minutes ago

            What the picture says <insert data missing entirely from the picture>

            …?

            ‘edgy undeveloped brains’

            Congrats on taking the bait.

            Lol aight man, you win, there definitely no projections and hallucinations here.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 hour ago

      One lifted millions of people out of abject poverty, provided them with food, housing, education, and healthcare, while the other has been terrorizing the world throughout its whole existence. But to an enlightened liberal these look exactly the same.

      • Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        57 minutes ago

        Would you say it is a good example of a communist state? Or at least, a good country that should have continued operating the way it did? More good than bad?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          Having grown up in USSR, I would say that it was a good example of a socialist state. It was unarguably more good than bad, and anybody with even a minimally functioning brain can see that the collapse of USSR was a huge tragedy for humanity. But perhaps you see capitalist restoration in the eastern bloc as a positive?