World News

32531 readers

466 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1138

Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

501 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.

“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I appreciate your in depth responses, but I think we are talking past each other or perhaps differing on the understanding of our points. I bring up these failings in the west to show that they are not an inherent part of socialism, and using them to dismiss socialism is not correct.

The siege socialism mentality taken on by the Soviet Union did have many negatives for those living in it, including lack of choice in products and lack of freedom of travel. It was not perfect, just as the USA is not perfect. However as a system it raised the living standards of its people of what once was the backwater of Europe to an actual modern standard in a large part of the country. It did this in spite of its conditions following the revolution, which were much worse than those of the USA, and despite a destructive war fought in its borders which cost millions of its citizens lives.

The fact is socialism did work for the USSR, whether or not free market capitalism would have worked for it given its starting conditions is debatable, but I doubt it.

I also differ in the opinion of whether Norway is socialist. I do not see it as such, instead I see it as a capitalist system with better welfare than some other states.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I bring up these failings in the west to show that they are not an inherent part of socialism, and using them to dismiss socialism is not correct.

It's not about absence or presence of these failings, it's about the degree of them, and socialism (USSR style) has very serious levels of these failings. Western societies have failings too, but on balance, and on average, they represent a better outcome for the citizens.

| The siege socialism mentality taken on by the Soviet Union did have many negatives for those living in it, including lack of choice in products and lack of freedom of travel.

It's not just about lack of products or the ability to have a holiday in France, it's about the freedom to disagree, the freedom to express your ideas, beliefs and ideals in whatever language you want, or through whatever culture you want, and to expect fairness from those around you. The USSR failed in this and killed, imprisoned or tortured those who did not comply with often toxic cultural norms. It was traumatic for those who had to live through it.

| However as a system it raised the living standards of its people of what once was the backwater of Europe to an actual modern standard in a large part of the country. It did this in spite of its conditions following the revolution, which were much worse than those of the USA, and despite a destructive war fought in its borders which cost millions of its citizens lives.

Russia may have been a backwater of Europe, but other countries it conquered were flourishing and prospering nations (WWII damage notwithstanding). Just look at what those states have achieved since being freed from the USSR. The USSR wasn't some rising tide, it was a huge deadweight on the peoples conquered by the russians. The rush to join NATO demonstrates this. They weren't forced or tricked into joining NATO, they WANTED to join NATO. Think about why that might be? It's because they saw the USSR as such a horrific, traumatic period that they never wanted to be forced to participate in anything like it again. Ever. Period.

| The fact is socialism did work for the USSR, whether or not free market capitalism would have worked for it given its starting conditions is debatable, but I doubt it.

It may have lifted the standards of living for peasant russians further than they might. have otherwise expected, but vassal states were actually held back by the USSR. I'm old enough to remember the USSR, which I suspect you are not. I've spoken with family who were forced to live in the USSR. They disagree with your perspective. Vehemently.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ok, I appreciate you taking the time to respond throughout this whole conversation. I think we disagree on a fundamental level about what difference socialism made to the former Russian Empire when taking into account the conditions of the country. I also think we disagree on how repressive western culture could and can be, and how damaging it can be to those who are not near the top of the pile, or to those who dare to challenge the status quo in any meaningful way, such as whistle blowers or groups like the Black Panthers.

I don't feel that newly independent countries rushing to join a stable alliance straight after the political collapse of their former country is that shocking, especially when paired with the fact that the majority of people within the Soviet Union voted to keep it intact in a referendum before the dissolution. Russia also wanted to join NATO, that doesn't mean the USSR wouldn't have been the better option for them.