People in the former Eastern Bloc thought images of homeless people were doctored by the communist party, they didn't believe an advanced industrial society would allow something like that to exist. The same is true for statistics about homelessness, poverty and so on in the West. They believed the social system that existed in their countries would continue to exist after they "became democratic". When they actually got a taste of free market capitalism, opinions changed, like the Yeltsin coup showed.
I'm not saying the vote was fair, or that the people weren't tricked or sold a bunch of lies, etc
My point is, this post makes it seem like that in 1991, 70% of people in the USSR were still communists or something like that, and I don't think that's the case. I think like 30-40% were actual communist and the rest are just like any regular voter anywhere else in the world -- if things aren't going great, they'll vote for the other most popular option no matter how insanely different it is. Voting for the Soviet Union and then for Yeltsin in a span of a few months? That's a perfect example of how idiotic and ineffective lib democracy is -- similar to stuff we see all the time in other countries today.
EDIT: lol why is this getting downvoted? Do people really think a majority of Soviet citizens loved communism or identified as communists in 1991 and then 9 years later like 70% of them were voting for Putin? Come on.
EDIT 2: Just to make it clear, I'm not in support of the Soviet Union falling apart, I'm saying liberal democracy is a sham and is used to get people to vote against their own self-interests, and that most people aren't inherently ideological. If things are going good, they'll like the current government, if things are going poorly, they'll dislike the government - doesn't matter if things going well/poorly is actually due to the actions of that government.
You're being downvoted because while the substance of what you're saying is fine, your first line (and thus ostensibly your thesis) is an emotional rejection of preserving the USSR/AES: "Pretty meaningless".
Like, yeah, this doesn't mean 80% of the Soviets were committed Marxists. But most people in most places aren't ever going to be ideologically committed to anything. They do just care about having basic stability and their needs being met.
But 80% of the Soviet people had associated a Communist government with a basically good life (DESPITE the late 1980s being an era of reaction and every scandal in the history of the USSR being aired).
When neoliberals win elections today they throw it in our faces - "We won! You lost! Nobody supports Sanders/Corbyn/Varoufakis!" And the media agrees with that - "you're a minority of radicals who'll never succeed in the real world, gtfo". But they only win because enough people associate the status quo with a basically good life.
So when we do win - it's not "meaningless". It's something to embrace, to celebrate. Don't be a defeatist.
Like kilternkafuffle basically said, you're being completely pedantic and don't understand that a majority in any country is never completely ideologically motivated. Do you think a majority of Americans are really liberals (in the proper sense) who support capitalism in any concrete way? No, and the evidence is in a number of things, including that over 100 million Americans don't (or sometimes can't) even vote in elections. Bernie Sanders got very high support even though he calls himself a Democratic socialist and they (mildly) red-baited against him. People care about their material reality, not whether some form of worker ownership is going to improve their lives. People want the end result, they don't care about the means to achieve it. The goal of socialists/communists is to associate a better life with socialism, which is exactly what the Soviet Union did for most of the people who lived in it and many people around the world, from China to Chile.
People in the former Eastern Bloc thought images of homeless people were doctored by the communist party, they didn't believe an advanced industrial society would allow something like that to exist. The same is true for statistics about homelessness, poverty and so on in the West. They believed the social system that existed in their countries would continue to exist after they "became democratic". When they actually got a taste of free market capitalism, opinions changed, like the Yeltsin coup showed.
Also, don't forget the massive amount the US governement invested in Yeltsin his reelection.
I'm not saying the vote was fair, or that the people weren't tricked or sold a bunch of lies, etc
My point is, this post makes it seem like that in 1991, 70% of people in the USSR were still communists or something like that, and I don't think that's the case. I think like 30-40% were actual communist and the rest are just like any regular voter anywhere else in the world -- if things aren't going great, they'll vote for the other most popular option no matter how insanely different it is. Voting for the Soviet Union and then for Yeltsin in a span of a few months? That's a perfect example of how idiotic and ineffective lib democracy is -- similar to stuff we see all the time in other countries today.
EDIT: lol why is this getting downvoted? Do people really think a majority of Soviet citizens loved communism or identified as communists in 1991 and then 9 years later like 70% of them were voting for Putin? Come on.
EDIT 2: Just to make it clear, I'm not in support of the Soviet Union falling apart, I'm saying liberal democracy is a sham and is used to get people to vote against their own self-interests, and that most people aren't inherently ideological. If things are going good, they'll like the current government, if things are going poorly, they'll dislike the government - doesn't matter if things going well/poorly is actually due to the actions of that government.
You're being downvoted because while the substance of what you're saying is fine, your first line (and thus ostensibly your thesis) is an emotional rejection of preserving the USSR/AES: "Pretty meaningless".
Like, yeah, this doesn't mean 80% of the Soviets were committed Marxists. But most people in most places aren't ever going to be ideologically committed to anything. They do just care about having basic stability and their needs being met.
But 80% of the Soviet people had associated a Communist government with a basically good life (DESPITE the late 1980s being an era of reaction and every scandal in the history of the USSR being aired).
When neoliberals win elections today they throw it in our faces - "We won! You lost! Nobody supports Sanders/Corbyn/Varoufakis!" And the media agrees with that - "you're a minority of radicals who'll never succeed in the real world, gtfo". But they only win because enough people associate the status quo with a basically good life.
So when we do win - it's not "meaningless". It's something to embrace, to celebrate. Don't be a defeatist.
Like kilternkafuffle basically said, you're being completely pedantic and don't understand that a majority in any country is never completely ideologically motivated. Do you think a majority of Americans are really liberals (in the proper sense) who support capitalism in any concrete way? No, and the evidence is in a number of things, including that over 100 million Americans don't (or sometimes can't) even vote in elections. Bernie Sanders got very high support even though he calls himself a Democratic socialist and they (mildly) red-baited against him. People care about their material reality, not whether some form of worker ownership is going to improve their lives. People want the end result, they don't care about the means to achieve it. The goal of socialists/communists is to associate a better life with socialism, which is exactly what the Soviet Union did for most of the people who lived in it and many people around the world, from China to Chile.