529

submitted 4 days ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] 64bithero@lemmy.world 36 points 4 days ago

Perfect example of why the political party system is pointless. I’d argue if anything it’s a tool used to undermine the whole democratic process

[-] Major_Tsiom@fedia.io 21 points 4 days ago

I agree; particularly the two party system we have. It effectively splits us into teams fighting each other instead of those in power.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

The town of Cheran in Mexico got rid of their corrupt mayor who is in the pocket of cartels. They also got rid of political parties because they believe it only cause divisions. The town then adopted an anarchist system whereby they elect a leader once a year. They set up their own militia patrols. So far, they've been successful.

[-] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Haha yeah we should have a single party compose only of workers with representatives paid only as much as their average constituant and subject to instant recall 👀

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

That would be AuThOrItArIaN!

Anyway, you have to Vote Blue NO MATTER WHO!!!

[-] RepleteLocum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago

You believe in an authoritarian state. Yes it would be authoritarian if you install a dictator. It doesn't matter how communist the state is. Like, that's your whole mo.

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml -4 points 4 days ago

You trust in the dictatorship of capital, and it has convinced you to worship at its feet.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Riddle me this. When the USSR collapsed and the state assets were sold off to private entities. Who were those entities?

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 days ago

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)

In post-Soviet Russia and other post-Communist states, neoliberal reforms based on the Washington Consensus resulted in a surge in excess mortality and decreasing life expectancy, along with rising economic inequality, corruption, and poverty.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

You did not answer my question.

The Russian government believed that the open sale of state-owned assets, as opposed to the voucher program, would have likely resulted in the further concentration of ownership among the Russian mafia and the nomenklatura, which they sought to avoid. Nevertheless, contrary to the government's expectations, insiders managed to acquire control over most of the assets, which remained largely dependent on government support for years to come.

Because most people were not well-informed about the nature of the program or were very poor, they were quick to sell their vouchers for money, unprepared or unwilling to invest.[18] Most vouchers—and, hence, most shares—wound up being acquired by the management of the enterprises. Although Russia's initial privatization legislation attracted widespread popular support given its promise to distribute the national wealth among the general public and ordinary employees of the privatized enterprises, eventually the public felt deceived, with most people selling their vouchers to survive the economic collapse following the soviet dissolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I don't understand your point. The process of privatization had terrible results. It was managed by pro-capitalists and facilitated the corruption and rise in mafia power.

In the months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, soon-to-be president Boris Yeltsin began assembling a team of economic reformers led by Yegor Gaidar, then a young reformist economist, and including Anatoly Chubais. The reform team initially considered Swedish social democracy as a model for Russia, but Gaidar opted instead to study Hungary as a template and was influenced by Poland's use of shock therapy. Both Gaidar and Chubais were convinced that despite Russia's uniquely non-capitalist economic history, a market economy could successfully take hold in the country. Following the August 1991 coup d'état attempt, the economic situation in the country dramatically worsened and an acute food shortage emerged. In October, Yeltsin delivered a speech in which he declared that price controls would be lifted on January 1, 1992, over Gaidar's recommendation that no specific date for the freeing of prices be given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Chubais

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

My point it was transfered exactly to the people already in positions of power...

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 days ago

That's what happens when you have liberals in charge of reforming the economy. And the results really speak for themselves.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

But they were 'elected' by the communist party... how can they be liberals?

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin

The dissolution of the USSR was led by liberals gaining power.

He later stood as a political independent, during which time he was viewed as being ideologically aligned with liberalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika

The purported goal of perestroika was not to end the planned economy, but rather to make socialism work more efficiently to better meet the needs of Soviet citizens by adopting elements of liberal economics.

Literally liberals doing a transition to liberalism under the guidance of the Washington Consensus, and you think the terrible results are the fault of socialism? Read some history please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago

You are blabbering about the 'terrible results' no shit, the government was shattered into choas. No economic ideology going to prevents choatic economics. Its not what i am arguing.

Im litterally saying all the self claimed communists that were in position took advantage of the choas and grasped their own empire. You point to one man. I point to them all.

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

If you read any of the links to the people responsible for the implementation, you will see they were all liberal reformers, not communists. But you don't care, you just want to blame someone else for the inherent failures of liberalism.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Nah. I blame oligarchs to always be oligarchs.

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

LMAO, they were created via the liberalization of the USSR economy. You are making my point for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs

The Russian oligarchs first emerged as entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary, 1985–1991), exploiting various loopholes during the economic liberalisation of his perestroika programme. Boris Berezovsky, a mathematician and former researcher, became the first widely recognised Russian business oligarch.

The oligarchs became increasingly influential in Russian politics during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin (1991–1999), a period often referred to as the wild nineties; they helped finance his re-election in 1996. Well-connected oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Potanin acquired key assets at a fraction of their value at the loans for shares scheme auctions conducted in the run-up to the election. Defenders of the oligarchs who later fell out of favour have argued that the companies they acquired were not highly valued at the time because they continued to operate on Soviet principles, with non-existent stock control, huge payrolls, no financial reporting and scant regard for profit.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Now circle back to the first comment in this chain and tell me. How did that happen.

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

The Russian oligarchs first emerged as entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary, 1985–1991), exploiting various loopholes during the economic liberalisation of his perestroika programme.

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2026

529 points (97.8% liked)

Political Memes

2645 readers

938 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz