People in the late Soviet Union were quite aware they were not living under the best system there is and most of them did not particularly believe being told things to that effect repeatedly any more than people in western societies believe ads.
It becomes harder to convince people of your position while they are starving. So yeah people stopped believing.
But there's a Long time from 1917 to 1990. And for the bulk of that time people believed enough for the status quo to be maintained.
And plenty of people in Western societies belive adds, and the evidence for this is that companies and parties keep making them...
They were not utterly oblivious to the outside world and accepting of the government and party line from 1917 to 1990. The last one already sounds completely implausible it should give you pause - that would make generations of Soviet people utter naifs. They weren't.
Firstly, the soviet Union was made up of a number of separate countries (as the original article notes things were quite different in Russia, Lithuania and East Germany. While all lead by communist parties, all operated in fear of Russian occupation (as happened in Hungary in 1956 and czechoslovakia in 1968).
Soviet block countries were dependent on Russia for aid, and military support. In the late 80's Russia was unwilling, and unable, to spend the necessary money to cover all the needs, so states prioritised food (on the basis that starving people are seldom compliment). Necessary maintaince of (for example) the border fence between Hungary and Austria is not paid for (by Russia) leading to the first domino falling and a route being opened to the west.
In Poland and Berlin popular movements progress quickly, and in both cases Gorbachev refuses to use the Russian military to prop up those govts.
These are but the broadest strokes though - obviously there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of different populations in play. But money is at the root of it all, and Warsaw pact countries needed money to import food from the west.
Your newer stuff isn't much better (Hungary didn't let East Germans into Austria because the fence was under-maintained) but that's probably past the point at which should wrap this up.
[1] https://www.bruegel.org/2015/09/eu-immigration-to-the-us-whe...
Why, instead, don’t these million plus seek a life in China or Cuba, if that system is, apparently better than the North American system?
In addition, Americans are actually free to leave but very few do, especially those affected by your examples of suffering from the system. We know people of very few means can emigrate, so given poor Americans have more purchasing power than poor who move here from elsewhere, if it were repressive we’d see an exodus of Americans to greener freer pastures.
There are 200 odd countries in the world, but you belive your country is the best, well, because some number from over there want to come here.
You want to belive your country is the best, your whole life you've been told by your authorities that it is the best, that everyone wants to come live here, and you've heard this as so often you've come to believe it.
This is fine - you are not alone, most people in most countries are perfectly happy with their system. Most people don't want to immigrate - whatever they have, wherever they are, is the home they know.
Unfortunately believing we are the best prevents us from being better. We cannot fix it unless we admit it is broken (whatever It is) and if we start from a position of "we are the best" then it's hard to admit some stuff is broken.
Sounds kinda awesome to be honest.
I'm sure it sounded less awesome to the people he hurt, but hey, it's all relative to where you stand, what you personally value, and how concerned about externalities.
It's rare for people to get shot and killed at a, say, a political protest in a society without such norms. It's rarer yet for the killer to be found to have been in the right.
You don't see teenagers in Canada think that it's a swell idea to drive across the country so that they could LARP Call of Duty at a protest with an AR-15. The two cultures' outlook on guns is different, and one very actively discourages that kind of behaviour... While the other one seems to encourage it.
And what does owning machine guns have to do with public carry? I asked about machine gun ownership.
And what does a teenager driving over state lines have to do with machine gun ownership?
You're really stretching to answer my question.
'I don't like a society where people can and do buy machine guns' is a pretty obvious shorthand for 'I don't like American gun culture'.
And a lot of people feel very strongly, in both directions, about the consequences of American gun culture.
You realize people legally own machine guns in Canada, right? Sure, you can’t get a permit now, but former owners are grandfathered in.
What do you think of Canada’s fun (edit: gun) culture?
This is a cultural consequence of achieving independence from an oppressor. People who desire control of others will always organize, oppress and build militaries. They invade, so peace is not an option with this personality type. Hence why seemingly normal people can buy machine guns. - There are predators around.
I recall reading there has never been a crime committed with a legally owned machine gun in the US”. I think that changed a while ago when some criminal murdered someone, but do you believe banning everyone from owning something that had been used in a crime once?
That seems very paternalistic. Which is a fine stance. It’s just not the one the US adheres too.
As to the "political protest", they were burning buildings and attacking people. (Curiously, many of these businesses were black-owned.)
There's a reason you don't see protests and hockey riots turning into gunfights north of the 49th. People don't bring guns to them, because they know that if they use them, they are going to get an absolute world of shit dumped on their heads by the courts.
Even if we assume that they actually thought that, they attacked someone who they had no reason to believe was involved in said "active shooter situation." The most favorable interpretation is that they were vigilantes who attacked with deadly force.
If Rittenhouse had chased down someone you agreed with politically, claiming "an active shooter situation", you'd want his head.
Because you read too much media.
USSR: first satellite, first animal in space, first animal returning from space, first human in space, first woman in space, first object orbiting the Sun, first hard lunar landing, first pictures of the dark side of the moon, first space station, first spacewalk, first soft landing on he moon, first probe to another planet, first landing on another planet, first satellite on another planet.
USA: first communications satellite, first weather satellite, first man of the moon (and conveniently the space race ends here).
My comment was more in line to contradict the statement of "this country invented everything!" when obviously the Soviets had a strong know how that certainly didn't come from the US [0].
The man on the moon is what it is: an incredibly impressive feat with an objectively terrible risk/benefit ratio, but pulling it off makes it great for propaganda purposes. Once the US did that, the crewed moon landing programs in the USSR, which already had problems, were instantaneously de-funded, as the value of being the first was gone.
It's not casual that since the space race ended, rational thinking kicked in and 100% of surface exploration and analysis has been done with unmanned rovers and sample return missions. And in my opinion, unmanned missions are more impressive from a technical standpoint, but that's another topic.
This is an article on the subject that covers well the main reason why the USSR failed at what they seemed to be winning. [1]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/11/this...
USSR did have less resources to dedicate to space. USA spent massively more on the Moon race - and while the technology was somewhat conservative in places, they reached the goal. The close call of Apollo-13 could illustrate both how stretched the resources were and how sufficient level of redundancy was. USA won the Moon landing, even though USSR claimed many secondary prizes - Zond flights, automatic orbiting, landing, Lunokhods and probe returns. Even though Luna-24 clearly brought important materials, still the scientific return from - massively more expensive - Apollo flights could be considered higher. Yet USSR spent maybe 1/5 of what USA spent on the Moon race.
Space stations are also somewhat hard to compare. While USSR had much more, and with better capabilities, the Skylab's heritage is still important - even today. Same goes to Shuttle/Buran - while Buran flew just one, rather symbolic flight, and Shuttle run a massive scientific (and others) program, still Energiya-Buran project produced Zenit launcher, family of engines leading to e.g. RD-180, not to mention the development of underlying technologies - e.g. Al-Li alloys and (I believe) friction welding were worked on in the scope of the project. Shuttle can be accused in killing two crews and in being excessively expensive. Buran can be accused in helping to bankrupt the USSR.
USSR had quite good automatic probes at the time of breaking, too. VEGA program was a resounding success, while Phobos was much less so - even though quite ambitious. Only pieces of those capabilities survived - post-Soviet Russia managed to participate well in commercial launch market and practically created space tourism industry, but seems like it works well only initially, and serious investments are hard to come by. Yet coming back to USSR it's hard to disagree that the space program - till the end of the country - was quite robust, despite the loss of the Moon race.
We can still consider the manned Moon flights as the biggest achievement in the manned space. But going back to USSR/USA comparison - we aren't even sure if USA is able to repeat them easily (USA can, but with lots of efforts, which modern programs demonstrate), which shows importance of political will. So it looks like there were different "kinds of sport" and participants showed different results in them, and if we assume that only Moon landings matter, then USA is the clear winner. The reality is probably more complex.
USA had a tremendous success with space probes - starting with Hubble. Actually, Voyager - still chugging along - and even Vikings - started massive Mars science - but I'd consider the wave of many space projects - Pathfinder, Galileo, Cassini, many space telescopes etc. - started roughly with Hubble launch.
In manned space USA was arguably tied with Shuttle, which eventually stopped flying in 2011, and had to send astronauts with Soyuzes; only when SpaceX completed the Crew Dragon, USA resumed sending people to orbit again; but these are better known recent events. Similarly USA recently got much stronger in commercial space sectors, including regarding manned space - launches, suborbital space; here modern Russia so far offers the same tourist flights as 20 years ago, while having troubles in modernizing, or even maintaining, the launcher fleet. But that's Russia, not USSR.
So if we stop the clock at the moment USSR dissolves, the relative space capabilities are different than now. In space USSR had - up until the end - enough of achievements to be considered world class.
Quite an unrealistic percentage and I speak as someone who did move to that place.
> basic health issues can bankrupt you
92% of Americans have health insurance [1] and all health insurance plans are required by law to have an out-of-pocket maximum [2].
> where the police are above the law
They're clearly not as seen by the police being convicted in almost every case recently.
> where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns
Machine guns are illegal to buy or posses by the general public due to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 [3].
> where the courts are setup to protect the rich and powerful
I'm not even sure where you're getting this from so I don't know how to respond. Rich and powerful people go to jail all the time.
> where politicians can lie without consequence
It's not illegal to lie per the 1st ammendment. It's up to the voters to vote out politicians that lie.
> Where people get no paid sick or holiday leave.
The average amount of PTO days in America is 10 days [4], but it varies by industry. I think people are confused on this one because the Federal government doesn't mandate PTO days, but this is a fallacy. In Sweden there's no national minimum wage laws, so does that mean everyone in Sweden must work for free?
[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27...
[2] https://healthcareinsider.com/out-of-pocket-maximum-205845
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
[4] https://www.zenefits.com/workest/how-much-is-average-pto-in-...
That’s without mentioning the problems with insurance being tied to your employer. My definition of a “free country” includes being able to quit your job and not worrying about losing everything you own because you get sick.
I’m not saying your definition has to be the same. I’m just trying to explain one of the big reasons why I decided not to try to emigrate to the USA (and I’d wager it’s this exact sticking point for a lot of other people, too).
> basic health issues can bankrupt you
While there is no universal definition of "basic health issues" as far as I know, there is "common health issues" definition.
If by "basic" you mean simple, then my question is: can runny nose bankrupt many Americans?
Why not? I suppose if you're part of that 8% without health insurance it might be a problem, but then again, if you can't afford health insurance you're not likely to pay hospital bills regardless of price.
It's definitely a hyperbole that Americans will go bankrupt if they get sick since a vast majority of them will have their medical bills paid for by their health insurance.
> That’s without mentioning the problems with insurance being tied to your employer.
Health insurance is not tied to your employer. You are allowed to buy health insurance on an open marketplace [1], either as an individual or on a family plan. You may even decline your employer's health insurance and buy your own if you so choose.
> I’m not saying your definition has to be the same. I’m just trying to explain one of the big reasons why I decided not to try to emigrate to the USA (and I’d wager it’s this exact sticking point for a lot of other people, too).
This is a major reason why I'm addressed this kind of misinformation on the internet. There are folks, like you, who aren't from here who might begin to believe some of the claims found on social media websites, and use that information to make life decisions.
(Not a huge issue in tech, though)
Here's one: Coffee is tied to my employer because my work gives me free coffee on the job.
And how are you suggesting we fix this? By not allowing employers to give employees free / cheap health insurance?
In other countries, pension plans can be "tied" to your employer, i.e., while employed by X, you get some extra perks in your pension plan (and the payments into the pension plan are deducted from your salary, so you are paying for it yourself), but if you move to another company (or become unemployed) you cannot keep the same pension plan (even if you want to keep paying it by yourself); you are forced to accept whatever conditions are available at that time.
https://sum.cuny.edu/medical-debt-americans-bankrupt-health-...
How do you figure? Do you have proof?
Also I don't understand what the original commenter is trying to prove either. It seems there's a recent concerted effort to spread misinformation about the US on social media sites like Reddit and HN. And yet, in the real world, it's pretty great here.
Because its the only system they know, and they've been told forever its the best system there is.
For example; There exists a system where basic health issues can bankrupt you, where the police are above the law, where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns, where the courts are setup to protect the rich and powerful, where politicians can lie without consequence, that separates immigrant children (babies) from parents (and then has no way to reunite them), that has jailed over 1% of its population. Where people get no paid sick or holiday leave.
Why would people feel happy about living under this oppressive system?
Now you probably had some strong reactions to the question. And therein lies your answer. People everywhere, regardless of the system, believe what they are taught to belive, and they are taught that their existing way is the best.