Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Understanding the USSR...a guide for those with CCDFs...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 73 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:54:19 BDT
Popcorn, It's not fair.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:45:58 BDT
David Groom says:
Gordon Bennett,

'The reason being that the place was an incompetent bureaucratic nightmare.'

And don't forget that it was the slavish deferment to authority and the fear of failure on the part of those bureaucrats that directly led to the Chernobyl disaster.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 12:43:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 12:44:55 BDT
RAB says:
No, but you asterisked a swear word. Calling this country and the USSR a "poohole"

EDIT: That being said so did Gordon.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:38:57 BDT
What did I say? Why amazon delete that post? did I swear?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:21:05 BDT
William, So Stalin was a caring sharing bloke who never hurt a fly?

I can believe that Khrushchev told porkies to strengthen his position...that's how the SU was organised.

Fact is William the SU was an incompetent basket case that did not do what it said on the tin, that's why it failed.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:16:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Apr 2012 00:57:54 BDT
Debatable Popcorn. And if it is, it's all a matter of degree.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:13:48 BDT
Gordon asks me to make a point that supports the case for the SU. Here's one example.
We have been told over and again that Stalin was anti-Semitic.
Grover Furr cites the dissident Zhores Medvedev who wrote, "Stalin's anti-Semitism, about which one may read in almost all his biographies, was not religious, nor ethnic, nor cultural. It was political, and expressed itself in anti-Zionism, not hatred of Jews."
Furr comments, "in plain language, Medvedev confirmed that Stalin was not anti-Semitic at all, since opposition to Zionism is common among both religious and non-religious Jews, including in Israel itself."

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:09:02 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 24 Apr 2012 12:21:34 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:05:53 BDT
Popcorn, SU = Soviet Union.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:01:25 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Apr 2012 00:57:14 BDT
Yes but you lived there which makes your opinion worth more than Popcorn's.

It seems to me that the SU was an illusion...everything was set up to portray a world that did not exist. The reason being that the place was an incompetent bureaucratic nightmare. Bureaucrats controlled everything and made all the decisions about what would be made and who would get it. Then there was the military which was given special resources so that the SU could look like a super power. The military built an industrial complex to service them that dominated the economy and starved everything else of resources, apart from prestige projects like space and winning bags of medals.

When the SU collapsed the GDP was about 6% of that of the US, about 10% per capita of the US.

The SU was a sh**e hole, and good riddance to it.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 11:53:16 BDT
But I qualified that generalisation with "largely." - You did RAB, my apologies (I agree anyway lol).
Morning Gordon, sorry, I'm no good with abrev's SU?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 11:48:33 BDT
Popcorn, You would have loved life in the SU.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 11:39:51 BDT
RAB says:
But I qualified that generalisation with "largely." And my experience with Joe Public is that they are largely idiots, and when it comes to running the country, I place myself firmly in that category.

As for tax, proportionately you're probably right, but I imagine Wayne Rooney still puts more into the coffers than I actually make.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 11:24:00 BDT
"But Joe Public is largely an idiot." - Careful RAB, you're generalising there so if you are going to, heres my generalisation. The rich pay too little tax, joe public pays too much. Is that a fair statement?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 11:19:39 BDT
RAB says:
But Joe Public is largely an idiot. You ask people on the street what they think of changes from the government, they only ever say a particular tax/law/whatever is unfair when it impacts them. The fact that it could help the country as a whole is glossed over in favour of the individual sob stories.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 11:01:22 BDT
"The one with the good lawyer shouldn't get off, the one hasn't got one doesn't have my sympathy because he's been breaking the law anyway." - No sympathy desired, serves a point though, unfair society, favouring those with money as money = power. I'm not well off, I've got it alright though living within my means. Its not money that bothers me, if I tried hard enough, I could make more. Its the fact we call this a democracy yet my opinion counts for jack. To get my voice heard this is the process I would need to follow:
1/ Tell local MP
2/ If (and only if) they like my idea, they can raise it at commons
3/ If commons like it (and it pretty much hhas to be a unanimous descision)
4/ Lourdes? I don't even know the process its that complicated and long winded. I've come to accept I have no control or say in anything this country does.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 10:25:18 BDT
RAB says:
I'll be honest mate, I'm not very well off either. I spend far more than I should, I'm almost always overdrawn, and I still don't feel like my life is that bad. Your second example isn't a brilliant one. The one with the good lawyer shouldn't get off, the one hasn't got one doesn't have my sympathy because he's been breaking the law anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 10:19:30 BDT
"I think we've got a far better standard of living than a lot of people think" - You can't say that RAB, its way too generalised. It may be applicable to you, but a single mum who struggles to keep her kids fed on benefits may beg to differ. A man whose been convicted with possession of drugs gets prison while another gets off cus they got a good lawyer.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 10:08:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 10:08:50 BDT
RAB says:
Still don't get the issue. Nobody's perfect, you're right, but that doesn't excuse people doing something wrong.

Just in general, I think we've got a far better standard of living than a lot of people think. The only problem is nobody's ever satisfied with anything nowadays.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 09:51:48 BDT
Easy? If you call not getting killed off by your government for having a difference of opinion easy, then yes, we deffo have it easy.

"You say you don't like speed cameras, is that because they catch you breaking the speed limit?" - Yes they do, that is why I don't like them. If you watch someone for long enough, they will do something wrong - nobody is perfect. Just in the UK the one time you do something wrong, a camera catches you.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 09:34:09 BDT
RAB says:
"(often at my expense, we tax payers fund it you see)"

Do we really? I had no idea.

Tell me though Popcorn, do you feel any of these things affect your life day-to-day at all? Personally I think we've got it pretty easy over here. You say you don't like speed cameras, is that because they catch you breaking the speed limit?

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 09:31:33 BDT
Morning RAB. Product advertising is subliminal Rab, sometimes you have been influenced without even knowing it.
As for the spying thing, its a matter of opinion, I don't like speed cameras, naturally going to take a dislike to CCTV where it is installed excessively (often at my expense, we tax payers fund it you see)

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 09:24:03 BDT
RAB says:
There are plenty of adverts out that sell products I don't buy. I assume that's the same for everyone.

As for surveillence, if you're doing nothing wrong, what's there to worry about?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 09:16:25 BDT
Lets analise that post, and compare to what we have in the UK:
"It took years to get rid of brainwashing effects produced by living there." - Advertising? Plenty of that in the UK. Brain washing? We are the most 'spied on' citizens in the world (each citizen in the UK will be on CCTV more than any other individual in any other country).
"Except top ranking communist party members and their closest pets (artists, scientists etc those agreeing with party's general directions)" - Cash for honours scandal? Corrupt police? Wealthy individuals influencing political parties? All in UK.

The only difference in the regimes is that the USSR dealt with opposition by use of force, The UK deals with opposition by ignoring it completely.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 08:17:13 BDT
Post Soviet says:
I was born and lived in that stinking corrupted system called USSR for 30 years.
It took years to get rid of brainwashing effects produced by living there. Except top ranking communist party members and their closest pets (artists, scientists etc those agreeing with party's general directions), rest of population looked with longing to the West.

Just my opinion and obseravation. '0)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  73
Initial post:  22 Apr 2012
Latest post:  2 May 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions