Why Progressvism Has Failed

**al Roumi** · 01-06-2011, 16:14

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

exactly, how many Russian peasants now make it to University?

**Lord of Lent** · 01-06-2011, 18:09

Originally Posted by alh_p

exactly, how many Russian peasants now make it to University?

That is no excuse. Not having been to college doesn't mean you do not possess common sense...

**al Roumi** · 01-06-2011, 18:45

Originally Posted by Lord of Lent

That is no excuse. Not having been to college doesn't mean you do not possess common sense...

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

**Lord of Lent** · 01-06-2011, 18:59

Originally Posted by alh_p

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

Oops! I read something different; I thought you meant low educational standards cause the phenomenon HoreTore was talking about...
Sorry, I'm a little sleepy...

**rory_20_uk** · 01-06-2011, 19:04

Originally Posted by alh_p

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

I think you are confusing the theory with the practice. It was not a level playing field and connections were as important then as they are now. A peasant son might have made it, but with a father on the politburo you'd be guaranteed a place wherever you wanted.

**al Roumi** · 01-06-2011, 19:08

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I think you are confusing the theory with the practice. It was not a level playing field and connections were as important then as they are now. A peasant son might have made it, but with a father on the politburo you'd be guaranteed a place wherever you wanted.

In the latter half of the 20th century, perhaps, but you'd need to convince me that it was always (i.e. early on/up to 1940s) that way.

And in any case, the system did not require the student to fund their own studies - so ability, not background, did count for more.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 01-06-2011, 19:23

The reason Russians long for Stalin is much the same why Raegan is so revered in the USA: no appreciation of what they actually cost them, combined with a rosy-tinted spectacles of the “good old days” do not an informed opinion make.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 01-06-2011, 20:46

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The reason Russians long for Stalin is much the same why Raegan is so revered in the USA: no appreciation of what they actually cost them, combined with a rosy-tinted spectacles of the “good old days” do not an informed opinion make.

They also yearn for the Tsar, but they also love Putin.

Russia will be ruled by despots so long as it wants to be ruled by despots.

**rory_20_uk** · 01-06-2011, 20:59

Originally Posted by alh_p

In the latter half of the 20th century, perhaps, but you'd need to convince me that it was always (i.e. early on/up to 1940s) that way.

And in any case, the system did not require the student to fund their own studies - so ability, not background, did count for more.

Great, so a variation of "In the West Money is used to gain power, in the USSR power is used to gain money". In case you missed it, background counted for more as unless you had connections then you'd hit glass ceilings. No loans for that.

**al Roumi** · 01-07-2011, 11:45

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Great, so a variation of "In the West Money is used to gain power, in the USSR power is used to gain money". In case you missed it, background counted for more as unless you had connections then you'd hit glass ceilings. No loans for that.

That's cute, but still beside the point.

**HoreTore** · 01-06-2011, 22:04

Originally Posted by alh_p

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

No, the point I made was that those people votes(or dreams, there are no elections in russia) run contrary to their interests - just like a poor man voting for a consvative party, the statement I was responding to.

Or another example: the Norwegian party with the most votes among people living on welfare is the party who wants to cut our welfare state most(the progress party).