Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism (NY Times)
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
eot
Banned
This is the great lie of capitalism
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
You both said it more succinctly than I could, so I will just quote you.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Lenin wanted genocide against all non-atheists, so Lenin fucked up a good bit also!
misses bull
Banned
Please dont confuse the inaccurate horseshoe theory with the completely accurate fish hook theory.
this is the only accurate horseshoe
I guess sociologists have to justify their existence somehow. Seems like they're struggling a bit for research ideas here. Also, how can you possibly gather reliable data for this? Did socialist states in the 50's task a secret police with monitoring bedroom activities of its citizens somehow?
People longing for a return to eastern-bloc style socialism tend to overlook or be ignorant to the outrageous corruption of those governments. You can have nice things like public education, parental leave, healthcare, welfare, basic income, and yes even good sex, without full-blown socialism.
People longing for a return to eastern-bloc style socialism tend to overlook or be ignorant to the outrageous corruption of those governments. You can have nice things like public education, parental leave, healthcare, welfare, basic income, and yes even good sex, without full-blown socialism.
Although you are changing subject, he deserves this critic, i agree. So? There's good things And bad things in soviet Union, what people do usualy is to give attention only for the bad things, And they try to hide the good side, or try to demonize the ideology And communists (How you see in this thread). You cant say one good thing of USSR there's someone "its an ideology of murderers! should be criminalized! communism killed Millions!".
Farewell red scared friends.
As someone who lived his childhood under communism I can tell you that you spread a lot of bullshit. People who say it was better under communism in Eastern Europe are people who benefited from the corruption and the abuse of the system.
Edit: I still fucking associate the smell of oranges to Christmas because that was the only time when we could find oranges when I was a kid. And Christmas was not allowed to be Christmas and Santa Claus was renamed to Father Frost.
I still associate Christmas with a Guy dressed as Santa, above a car throwing Candies on the street, And a Lot of poor, dirty, slim kids without shoes running to get the Candies. I watched this every year. Must be Nice to live in a Rich capitalist state.
harriet the spy
Member
Are you trying to channel trump and the Neo nazis? If so, it's pretty successful.
Sounds to me like he's saying he grew up in East Germany.
Not in East Germany, in another Eastern European country.
Try paying attention to what you read next time.
misses bull
Banned
Im a big fan of socialism but people like you make me think otherwise
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Nazism =/= Communism
Nazism is an evil and vile ideology that defends the extermination/supression of other human races
Communism is an economic and social system based in that all resources are collectively owned by a society with no classes. The abolition of private property. That's all.
You can argue that communism could never work, but compare nazism or dictatorships with communism is disingenous, to say at least.
If there hasn't be a democratic communist nation, is because USA didn't let it happen. Salvador Allende, a marxist, won Chile elections in 1970, USA quickly acted and supported a coup by Pinochet.
tonysidaway
Member
I don't think it's much of a reach to say that state subsidized childcare is very good for the physical and mental well-being of those rearing children. When some people say we must look at how prodigiously capitalism amasses wealth, I'm happy to admit that, but I also want to remind them that, without principles such as wealth redistribution and universal healthcare, that wealth ends up in the hands of a small few, placing the greatest burden solely on workers.
It isn't inevitable that a wealthy country must force its most productive workers into lives of hard slog with no respite. In my lifetime, though, I've seen a couple of generations rise up and being taught to accept it. Even in a nominally social democracy like Britain.
It isn't inevitable that a wealthy country must force its most productive workers into lives of hard slog with no respite. In my lifetime, though, I've seen a couple of generations rise up and being taught to accept it. Even in a nominally social democracy like Britain.
Why? My personal impression on a third World country Bored you this much?
If my point is not clear i Will say, people say that communism states are horrible, and compare to a First World capitalist country, And ignores the third World in the equation.
If i was rude to the Guy, my bad.
Messofanego
Banned
All she does is work and work, Ms. Durcheva told me in 2013, and when she comes home at night she is too tired to be with her husband. But it doesnt matter, because he is tired, too. They sit together in front of the television like zombies. When I was her age, we had much more fun.
So, not much different from modern couples 😂
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
People commonly just say 'oh thats utopia' and brush off any critical thought.
Learning from history the most prosperous countries have really only got there by the historic exploitation and outright theft from other countries and their peoples - something still unaddressed today. See Shell and it's colonial like grip upon Nigeria (it's people, government and resources) - backed by bankers of course.
Towards a certain point decades ago yes, but often looked over is the point that the main beneficiaries have always been the elite in both communism and capitalism. Everyone else is scrabbling around for the scraps and distracted by political games without even realising.
The governments pushed by an increasingly vocal scientific community and grassroots organisations are doing their bit to counter the damage. The industry favours the status quo. Look at all the low efficiency fossil fuel cars on the road and who is constantly making a lot of money from all that - it's not to our benefit or the ecosystem.
The car is one case where propulsion technology has been suppressed due to financial interests. No conspiracy there.
If you want to delve deeper uranium over thorium for fission. etc
Rising wealth inequality in 'prosperous' western countries being one of the improvements.
At the end of the day progress is fine as long as a powerful minority can make more money from it - any groundbreaking tech or change in consensus that challenges that - no.
You wonder why people today are ignorant until the water is around their ankles?
Master Of Illusion
Member
I know GAF bends left, but people here are actually siding with the USSR?
Huh...
Huh...
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
where's the difference to today?
tonysidaway
Member
Making this kind of joke is a good sign that you've decided that this is how things should be.
tonysidaway
Member
Yes. The soviet systems sometimes got it right. The best of their ideas also held sway, and still do, in Western Europe. Free healthcare is not unusual here. Women's rights are taken seriously.
Master Of Illusion
Member
Maybe it's the Cuban in me, but anytime I see Soviets held in a positive light I start sweating nervously.
Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. Just like the USA, or China. Or hell even modern Russia.
The USSR was a lot more than just Stalin's period of rule. A lot of people there were genuinely trying to do good things but their system of governance prohibited further progress in many ways and actively crushed it in others. But it also made significant strides compared to what it came out of.
tonysidaway
Member
Well I'm not saying they were good, I'm pointing out that we in Western Europe were also into socialist ideas. And those ideas when put into practice make the quality of life for everybody much better. The fact that even now some Americans think they're so far ahead while they cannot even care for sick people who don't have savings, that's quite blatant.
I have no idea how you could have deduced that from a simple observation
tonysidaway
Member
Let's be clear: there is nothing simple or observational about that declaration.
perfectchaos007
Member
But we also don't have to wait in line for food rations
Incorrect.
The US is also doing its bit to counter climate change, ignoring the efforts of the President into the contrary. This is because, thanks in part to the efforts of the Obama administration, green energy has advanced to the point where it can be competitive with traditional modes of energy generation, which means that corporate interests have begun seeing green technology as having the potential for significant growth.
Hell, even hydraulic fracturing has been beneficial to the fight against climate change. While it is locally environmentally damaging, fracking has opened up the gas supply so much that highly polluting coal has been driven into economic nonviability.
Climate change is an area where capitalistic motives and profit interest can contribute towards the greater good instead of away from it.
you're going to have to explain yourself a bit, it's all quite cryptic
all I can see if a little comic bit that's basically saying "oh how little things have changed/how similar the situations are"
what are you seeing?
Raven117
Member
You think its "cannot" do you?
tonysidaway
Member
In Western Europe (which is what I'm talking about) rationing was very rare if not completely unknown. What was your point?
perfectchaos007
Member
I thought we were discussing socialist east Germany
SecretMoblin
Member
it's times like these we really need kame-sennin back
tonysidaway
Member
Yes. Poor people in my country have routine access to healthcare for chronic conditions and diseases, without cost, with medication costs capped at around £100 per year if you buy a prepayment card. In America, such health coverage is a distant aspiration that Obamacare started to try to achieve. Even those who have insurance can find themselves in severe financial trouble in addition to the cost of coping with the consequences of a severe disease.
Maybe not "cannot" so much as "will not."
tonysidaway
Member
Well they had universal healthcare, too. But so did most of Western Europe, which did not have rationing.
tonysidaway
Member
I'm reading for context. This woman is talking about the low quality of her daughter's home life. For some reason the commenter injected some nonsense implying the opposite of the original meaning.
It's only cryptic if you think it's normal for young people to be too worn out to enjoy being young.
I mean, what the fuck? Why would anybody think that's an acceptable state of affairs?
7DollarHagane
Banned
These opinions are truly the definition of missing the forest for the trees.
The Fatal Englishman
Member
Universal healthcare was hardly strictly the domain of the Soviets. Granted, the Russians were the first to introduce a truly centralised public healthcare system in the early-20s (albeit excluding the rural population in typical Leninist style). However, this was preceded by Britain's National Insurance Act of 1911 which provided primary care and unemployment benefits to industrial workers. After WW2, most of Western Europe, as well as Canada, New Zealand and Australia introduced universal healthcare - beginning with the establishment of the NHS in Britain in 1948.
Exactly what it's like if you got two people working their asses off with young kids in tow.
biggersmaller
Banned
No. Saying the benefit of communism is better orgasm IS the REAL example of missing the forest for the trees. Not only is it a bogus assertion based on all historical precedent, it's diesengenious and frankly offensive to the millions of the oppressed.
biggersmaller
Banned
No. My family was on food stamps in the Reagan era for years. This is a false equivalency. Anyone on food assistance can get food.
In my many travels around Eastern Europe I've found opinions on whether life is better now than before 1989 tend toward ambivalence. People like the consumer goods & freedom of movement, they don't like the increased poverty & inequality, crime, what someone described to me as 'the grasping culture'. Certainly there are many older people who feel betrayed & dismayed at the way things have changed, and many of the older women I've spoken to also mentioned how their position in society has moved backwards.
Automation will save us. As the number of human jobs dwindles, governments will restrict families to one working adult per family. This allows one adult to stay at home and look after the children, reducing costs on childcare. Of course not being the 50s anymore, that one adult could be the father, or maybe both adults do part-time jobs.
I don't see how this could be possibly work when not all members of the workforce share the same skill set. Furthermore the folks whose jobs are eliminated due to automation won't necessarily be able to transition to something else because of lack of education and experience.