245
Women in the USSR were in space before American women could open a bank account (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 months ago by [M] to c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Women were allowed to vote in the US before anyone was allowed to vote in the USSR.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The working class was able to vote in election once the Tsars were removed, and the ballot extended to the bourgeoisie and land owners in 1937

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Remind me how many parties they could vote for?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They didn't vote for parties. Elections happened at a local level where people knew candidates personally. Elected local councils ('soviets') would then elect members to higher councils in a 'tiered' system, all the way up to the supreme soviet.

    A good-faith criticism of this model might be that it has a high degree of inertia, in that it may respond slowly to sudden changes in popular opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    So the Bolsheviks weren't the dominant party that eliminated all the others after they won the Civil War?

    And remind me what happened to public figures who spoke against the premier in any way? I'm sure nobody complained because they loved the government so much that they'd never say a bad word about it...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, that's right. The point I'm making is that elections worked very differently to the party politics people are used to, with an emphasis on people personally knowing their representatives. To the average voter, the bolshevik party wasn't very relevant when they were choosing between two guys who lived on their street.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    And what happened when those representatives disagreed with the inner circle?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    They in turn elected candidates to put forth their disagreement

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Again, what happened to high-ranking politicians who openly expressed disagreement with the premier and his cabinet?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I think, there were some more events, and maybe they involved elections, too. And after that all the other parties were eliminated, because it turned out that it's easier to rule when there's no other options

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Because eliminating representatives who might disagree with you is much more democratic than allowing a multiple party system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    There are NO parties if you have a representative government. Instead of arguing you could just say you have no clue how any of this works but you are open to learning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    So why did the USSR have one?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    The purpose of a system is its outcome. If the elections only ever produced comically landslide victories for the ruling party, then that is a guarantee of a sham election.

    Even if you assume every Soviet voter was a full-on true believer Communist, you would still never have such outcomes in fair elections. You would end up with multiple communist parties, each practicing a slightly different flavor of communism, vying for the vote.

    Any voting system where the ruling party endlessly wins overwhelming victories is guaranteed corrupt and a sham.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent