Conversation
Notices
-
Who knew Russia was a legal dystopia
-
@moonman Gotta love having Poutine as your leader. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Poutine.JPG
-
@moonman We’re legitimate dystopia since around 1700 I guess.
https://gs.smuglo.li/url/50843
In Moscow there is a district which is literally named ‘(of) Remains’. https://gs.smuglo.li/attachment/50842 -
@tijagi The first cop is keanu reeves
-
@nerthos No, it’s Pavel Durov when he lost VK.
-
@tijagi Now in a serious note, Russia is one of a few oddities along with China in that they're empires that abused themselves more than anyone outside their borders. That's also in my opinion why they never fall, as empires are often toppled by those who were their victims, and in the case of these two countries, over and over their own populations start revolutions and do the whole thing again.
-
@nerthos
Revolutions are too radical of a measure, in my opinion. Country loses blood, money and other resources, industry struggles for survival and progress declines. In result people have poor living conditions and the country drops its place in various list of achievements. I’m for introducing measures constantly but at small dosages. There is a Japanese ideology on that matter, kai zen, IIRC.
On the other hand, when a country is on the verge of stagnation and collapse, revolution is better. During the late XIX century there were attempts to reform the state, but they did not met enough adherents to bloom. Then there was Lenin, who understood, that transition to a socialism should happen gradually and didn’t want radical moves, planning private property to coexist with the common property in order for the economy to work. But then he died, and the power went to Stalin. He wanted things to be done here and now, that costed the country lives lost to famine, but he still achieved progress. After him there was nobody versed in communist ideology, the country became hooked on oil production and started to drown in slumber. In 1991, before USSR collapsed, there were two groups of people, one that suggested a detailed plan for three years that should change the economy, and the other group that suggested a 100 days plan, a ‘shock therapy’. The result of what Gorbachev chose is well known. never_quit_an_empire.png -
@tijagi Oh, I agree completely. When it's still possible, gradual, well regulated changes can breathe life into a decaying country with minimal loses, but when the decay is too advanced you have to amputate and go for a refoundation. And the issue of total capitalism vs total communism is clear: neither works. A mid point is needed, with the state having enterprises of it's own, controlling basic services like gas, electricity, water, roads and such, and regulating work laws; but at the same time individuals need to be allowed to have their own, own the houses, items and benefits they earn and be able to start their own bussiness as long as they're legal (with law being reasonable) with minimal intervention from the state. That's the only way to have a country where there's both an active economy and society, and basic living conditions are assured.
dtluna likes this.
-
